I can’t seem to submit BGGH EVULO DCT MAGNI EKVG as an IFPS compliant route to the Simbrief route database
Eurocontrol shows it as fully compliant:
In general it seems like arriving into EKVG from the west means you’re gonna be unable to submit that route to the db, however, submitting ENBR → EKVG works just fine.
My guess is it has to be related to the 1,000+ nautical mile direct.
While most likely technically a bug, I doubt such a route is advisable even if it passes CFMU validation.
Even nowadays, most IRL routes seem to include intermediate fixes every 300 to 500nm or so (at least). I doubt anyone IRL would really file and fly BGGH EVULO DCT MAGNI EKVG
Regards,
Tim
Thanks for the info, yeah, seems like the 1000nm direct is the cause. Inserting an intermediary fix, say, SABAG, makes it work once more.
Speaking of SABAG, would that be a good intermediate fix for such a purpose? And what’s the general principle behind giving intermediate fixes just so I know what to look for in the future
There is no hard and fast rule (that I know of). When in doubt, I would look at real-world flight plans on e.g. edi-gla and use them as an inspiration:
There is no BGGH EKVG, but two BGSF EKVG which use many intermediate fixes along the way.
Personally, when trying to break a very long leg, I would start by trying to find something roughly halfway between the start and end of the leg, and close to the center/path of the leg, a quick visual check on skyvector shows SOPEN might be suitable (provided it still passes CFMU validation which I have not checked).
But it’s sometimes also useful (and occasionally required) to include a fix at or near the boundary when switching between Flight Information Regions, for example DEVNU when switching from Nuuk/BGGL to Reykjavik/BIRD. And then the 766nm direct is a bit long, try to find something halfway or simply fixes along the track that don’t lengthen the route by much. And for oceanic, latitude/longitude waypoints can be used if it helps.
For this specific route, if I were planning it for myself, I like the following:
EVULO DCT KOGAG DCT DEVNU DCT INGAN DCT ROSTI DCT MAGNI
…some of those are not strictly necessary but are basically so close to the track that it hardly adds any mileage to the route.
Regards,
Tim
Interesting.
I generally know about the waypoints between FIRs occasionally being needed, though in this case I figured it’d be fine given that it was IFPS. However, seems I’ve got a good bit to learn.
Also thanks for sharing the thought process, that’ll help in the future quite a bit!
Edigla is also something I’ve used before to make sure my routes are proper.
Aside from allowing the pilot to know when they’re gonna leave an FIR and more waypoints to take wind data from, what would be the other benefits from including waypoints along the way?
Given how direct this route is, it’s not particularly important here, but the FIR boundary fixes might help with ATC’s ability to give shortcuts when traffic permits, as they can’t usually just clear you to a waypoint that’s outside of their FIR (except specific waypoints covered by e.g. a LOA, but those will usually be near the FIR boundary anyway).
I’m not a real-world dispatcher, so I can’t really comment specifically on why you’d want to include other intermediate fixes, but I imagine they can help with fuel checks and general situational awareness.
Regards,
Tim
Ah I see, good to know, thanks for all the info given! Gonna help a lot in future planning and gonna have to revisit some previous routes to improve them