Emiliano Ferraco Posted August 11, 2011 at 04:45 PM Posted August 11, 2011 at 04:45 PM (edited) Hi, I have some doubts about COPX Take a look a this one: COPX:*:*:PADAS:*:*:EZE-RADAR:EZE-FIR:*:*:PADAS 1º.- Are coordinations points reciprocal? In the example, coordination points works fine much as for precedings planes from EZE-RADAR and from EZE-FIR? or should I define COP in both ways EZE-RADAR:EZE-FIR and EZE-FIR:EZE-RADAR? 2º.-Are FIR COP used for Firs boundaries between firs that belongs to the same country? or they are just used in an international boundary? 3º.- When a fix corresponds to both, a FIR_1 and a TMA_1 boundary, should I define a COP in that fix between FIR_1 and FIR_2 by [Mod - Happy Thoughts]igning it to the minor in hierarchy (the TMA)? Thnx Edited September 7, 2011 at 12:01 AM by Guest Emiliano T. Ferraco http://www.sur-air.com.ar http://www.estudioferraco.com.ar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergely Csernak Posted August 12, 2011 at 06:59 PM Posted August 12, 2011 at 06:59 PM 1 - In case you do not have point/rwy before and after the point itself (*:*:PADAS:*:*) then you do not have to repeat it. 2 - It is really up to you. FIR_COPX is an ordenary COPX point but displayed in another TAG item. There is no more functions that makes them different. 3 - If you do not have any additional constraint (climb, descend to the TMA_1 airport) and FIR_1 always owner of TMA_1 if no APP controller is online, then it is not necessary. Gergely. EuroScope developer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emiliano Ferraco Posted August 13, 2011 at 02:25 PM Author Posted August 13, 2011 at 02:25 PM thank you Gergely..! Emiliano T. Ferraco http://www.sur-air.com.ar http://www.estudioferraco.com.ar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emiliano Ferraco Posted September 5, 2011 at 01:59 PM Author Posted September 5, 2011 at 01:59 PM Hi, I´ve a new doubt now: If in a FIR COPX the LOA establishes that at a designed fix, to transfer the flight, it is require a minimun FL (for example FL250 as min), but not an specific FL, how can I define that COPX? Just guessing, perhaps I should define two FIR_COPX, one for the event the aircraft is below the min. (defining a climbing constraint) , and other in case the aircraft is above that min. (in this case, without any constraint)... Emiliano T. Ferraco http://www.sur-air.com.ar http://www.estudioferraco.com.ar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emiliano Ferraco Posted September 8, 2011 at 02:09 PM Author Posted September 8, 2011 at 02:09 PM Anyone? Emiliano T. Ferraco http://www.sur-air.com.ar http://www.estudioferraco.com.ar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gergely Csernak Posted September 18, 2011 at 06:28 PM Posted September 18, 2011 at 06:28 PM In COPX and FIR_COPX you can define only one altitude. That is used for profile calculation as a default coordinated altitude for transfer. There is no way to define minimum and maximum levels at a given point. Gergely. EuroScope developer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts