Jump to content

3 questions about COPX, and now, a new one about FIR_COPX


Recommended Posts

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)?

 

Sin_t_tulo.jpg

 

Thnx

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

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)...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...