Aircraft Outside PilotEdge Air Space and LAT/LON Ranges

[Calvin Waterbury]

At this moment I see three aircraft outside of ZLA/ZOA. One is in Phoenix, AZ and two are in London. If this continues to be allowed I am concerned this will set a precedent that may be difficult to quell. I am also seeing 5 aircraft in ZLA at this moment. If the other three aircraft outside of PE air space were in the air space we would have 8 aircraft. Simple addition, but becomes a multiplicative factor in magnitudes in pilot and ATC interactions.

Before this gets out of hand, I would recommend some kind of automated restriction be set in place like setting lat/lon ranges. Aircraft which try to connect outside of the ranges would be denied connection. While this may seem heavy-handed, if pilots will not comply with the self-policing voluntary guidelines that are in place some kind of server-based automated criteria be introduced.

This is just my opinion.

[Keith Smith]

Not possible, we have already stated that pilots are welcome to fly into or outside of the coverage area in previous forum discussions.

Flights that occur ENTIRELY outside of the coverage area are discouraged, for the reasons you stated.

We just had an influx of new people, some education is going to need to take place, and we are already on it. The solution is user education, not an electric fence.

[Calvin Waterbury]

My post has nothing to do with...

Not possible, we have already stated that pilots are welcome to fly into or outside of the coverage area in previous forum discussions.

As I stated, it was my opinion, but I do think it is unfair to qualify a suggestion of an automated, server-based qualification mechanism designed to maintain PE-use integrity as an "electric fence." How is incorporating an inside/outside of a LAT/LON range qualifying mechanism which allows/disallows connection with a polite message box reminder of PE's constraints (if necessary) any different than the PE UID/PWD mechanisms for access to the network and this forum? Could not that be considered an "electric fence" using the same logic?

Consider also your plan to "educate" is one which will require constant and continual maintenance. An automated "gate" as I have suggested above is one-and-done. Having said that, I recognize you have the authority to do anything you wish. I am only attempting to simplify a situation which will forever be a niggle PE staff will have to deal with every time some new people show up.

I recognize this thread is going nowhere, so I'm done, but everything is OK. I'm good.

[YYZatcboy]

Find good scenery for NORCAL/SOCAL(!!) For x-plane and I will be thrilled to fly more inside the coverage area. Until then the best I can do is flights that start from one of the hundreds of airports that have scenery OUTSIDE the coverage area and land at the two or three airports that have scenery inside. (Luckier when NORCAL is open because of the excellent bay area stuff by Tom Curtis)

[Tim Krajcar]

Find good scenery for NORCAL/SOCAL(!!) For x-plane

http://www.xplanes-scenery.com/

[Keith Smith]

Find good scenery for NORCAL/SOCAL(!!) For x-plane and I will be thrilled to fly more inside the coverage area. Until then the best I can do is flights that start from one of the hundreds of airports that have scenery OUTSIDE the coverage area and land at the two or three airports that have scenery inside. (Luckier when NORCAL is open because of the excellent bay area stuff by Tom Curtis)

Our core competency is providing ATC, hence the tag line "Professional ATC for Flight Simulators". I do plan to reach out to some scenery developers for X-Plane to see if they'd be up for putting something together for our coverage area, but we can only do so much at once.

I'm sure scenery would be great to have, but if you're choosing airport scenery as a higher priority than having ATC service, then this isn't necessarily the best solution for you at the moment.