PE Proselytizer Needs Backup Support

[Calvin Waterbury]

I take every opportunity to aggrandize proselytes for Pilotedge. I can't speak for others, but the biggest issue (aside from the limited region) I have had with the few people I have spoken to about PE is the surprise and disorientation when they hear the same voice when contacting the next controller. The comments are, "it feels weird." I have to admit it still disorients me too. I find myself doing a double-take at the COM to make sure I am on channel. The end result is they don't continue on Pilotedge. Maybe I'm just a bad salesman or am not smart enough to pick the ripe candidates?

I know this has been discussed before. When trying to "sell" Pilotedge, the biggest issue is always, "the coverage is too small." The second I covered above. I understand PE's necessities for both and they make sense from a business view. I believe in what Pilotedge is about and I support the service. It was actually the end of a two-year quest where I tried to find this needed aspect of supporting my children's aviation learning. I only wanted to offer feedback on my efforts in the field. If PE can help by trying to move the ATC CVAI (Controller Voice-Augmentation Initiative) up the priority ladder a rung or two it might help with adding more pilots to the scope. At least I could defend the gripe I hear so often.

Note: I realize human nature provokes people to make up excuses for not doing something they do not want to do. The "it's weird" comment can be that kind of excuse; however, as I said, I, myself, experience that "weird" sensation when contacting the next controller and hear the same voice. I know this is not an easy issue for the executive staff. Seemingly, it would require additional resources (maybe $$) to implement something which in the end result would appear miniscule in comparison to other needs. I am posting this because the PE staff are not mind readers and this is something that weighs on me at times. I don't make policy. I don't have any connection to Pilotedge other than my account and my children. Regardless, I remain 100% committed to Pilotedge's success. "Go Pilotedge!"

[arb65912]

Hi Calvin, I have never thought of that ( same controller and different frequency) until now when you pointed it.
Of course , having different controllers would be great but I think the main reason is not implemented, is the cost.
Let's say that we would like 6 controllers for Clearance Delivery , through Ground , Tower ending up with Center.
It would need 5 extra Controllers to keep things realistic.
I do not know how would it be possible from Controller side, operating for example all Towers, it might not be possible or very hard to implement.
I think the cost is the major factor, PE membership would have to be much more expensive.
Very good point though.
I will be looking forward to Keith's reply. Cheers, AJ

[Pieces]

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is quite normal in the area I fly to have one controller on multiple positions. The nearest towered airport only ever has one controller on duty (as far as I'm aware), and the clearance/approach controller for my airport is usually the same person.

[Keith Smith]

Having unique voices for each position that we support for ZLA would result in an average monthly subscription rate of $1500....per customer.

Hands up all those people who are prepared to pay $1500/mth for their PE access? Hands up if you think we can get everyone to pay that amount.

And there you have it

So, in lieu of charging that, having no customers, and shutting the entire venture down, I wrote the system to allow for flexible staffing levels. The compromise, however, is that you hear the same voice during portions of the flight, and that you hear controllers working multiple positions. This has virtually no affect on the training value of the system, it's simply different than what happens in the real world. Conceptually, though, the pilot is still on the hook for monitoring radio transmissions containing their callsign and THAT is what is important.

There should be no confusion when you change frequencies and hear the same voice because a) if you shouldn't have changed frequencies, the 'new' controller will ask you why you're on the new frequency, or b) if you didn't change frequencies, the 'old' controller is going to ask why you haven't swapped frequencies. It's precisely like the real thing, it's just that it's often the same person on the old and new freqs. The PROCESS is identical, and that's what PE is all about, replicating the process of flying with ATC.

Let's pretend that we DID have 150+ controllers working at the same time, you would, practically speaking, almost never hear a radio transmission that was NOT for you, unless we had real world traffic levels. That's because, statistically, most transmissions would be for pilots on other frequencies, made by controllers who were on other frequencies. Ergo, you'd hear NOTHING for much of the time.

If a person decides PilotEdge is not useful because there are some differences between the voices here and the voices on a real radio, then I think they're missing the big picture and are ignoring the tremendous benefits that we have to offer. Those who have flown here for any length of time have conveyed what they think is valuable about the system, confirming what we hoped would be true prior to committing to building this.

It was never my vision to run with just one or two controllers, but that's where we are right now. I don't think it will be too long before you hear more unique voices over the course of the flight, but I think we'll reach a point where every position is worked by a unique person. The best you can EVENTUALLY hope for is one voice for clearance, one for ground, one for tower, a few controller voices during the enroute segment, then a voice change as you swap to tower and ground at the destination. By then, you'll have forgotten that the ground tower guy at the destination is the same as the tower at the origin. That is the long term vision.

AJ, the staffing model that you propose is exactly how the system already works when we staff it accordingly.

[Keith Smith]

Regarding the 'small'' coverage area that doesn't match where people currently fly...I just worked with a commercial prospect on the phone today who finally admitted that the reason they have held back for a year is because we don't cover their area. I asked what was unique about their area and they listed a few "unique" attributes. I listed 3 airports with identical attributes (runway configurations, lengths, and approach types) within 10 secs. I also pointed out that if the students already know the area like the back of their hand, then when they brief those same old approaches, they're not really briefing them with a fresh set of eyes...they're just refreshing themselves on what they already know.

It's better training, I argued, to put them in an unfamiliar environment where NOTHING is known ahead of time. Why? Because it will better prepare them for the day they actually fly somewhere NEW with their instrument rating.

Why do I think this is true? Because half of the instrument pilots shoot the same approaches every 6 months, in VMC, with the same safety pilot as usual. They don't fly anywhere with their ratings, because while they're LEGAL, they're smart enough to know that they couldn't fly a brand new approach in IMC with any level of confidence.

There IS value to doing some local familiarization in the sim with new students, no question....but very quickly, it turns out that flying is flying, and an approach is an approach. There are a handful of SFRA's around the country that have some interesting procedures, but other than that, the training you do in one piece of sky benefits you for just about any other piece of sky that you'd like to fly in.

I know this to be true because, thanks to PE, I've done a truckload of real world flying within about 1200nm radius of my home and every time I fly into brand new airspace 1) I do nothing special to prepare for it, 2) I feel no stress whatsoever about flying into the new airspace shooting a brand new approach or a STAR and 3) I don't experience anything new from a procedural standpoint, whether it's flying into JFK, ATL or a fuel stop at a non-towered field in the middle of nowhere.

If people want to fly in a specific area in the sim for entertainment or curiosity, I'm all for it, but if a commercial flight school says that there is no value in flying outside of their local airspace, then I have endless reasons and evidence to think that they're wrong and probably haven't thought it through. More often than not, it's simply because change is hard, and their instructors are not wild about having to review a sectional prior to a flight, rather than having memorized it all having flown it 300 times prior.

I've had the discussion, no kidding, more than a hundred times at this point, and I haven't heard a valid reason yet other than 1) SFRA's, 2) local fam flights for students (both of which are great reasons to fly locally in the sim). The rest is all resistance based on pretty shaky ground.

[arb65912]

AJ, the staffing model that you propose is exactly how the system already works when we staff it accordingly.

Thanks Keith, I was on a right track as far as the costs.
I am totally happy with what I get for the price.
IF I was asked what I would like, I would like to see prerecorded big iron flying into major Class B "talking to ATC" but I am not sure how hard it would be to implement that.
What if the traffic was also drones recorded but Controller would have to give them instructions even without them reading back?
I think, it would enhance the experience a lot because now, except of GA traffic, Class B is quite empty.
It is just an idea, probably not new anyway but since we are talking ... why not to suggest?
Again, I would not expect the big iron "pilots" to copy but if we could see the traffic departing and landing and hear ATC on corresponding frequency "directing " the traffic, it would be really cool IMO.

Ooops, I am sorry, I actually hijacked the thread, sorry Calvin. Cheers, AJ

[Calvin Waterbury]

Like I said, I know the reasons why things are the way they are and have to stay that way until the user base can justify changes, but I can see how this information might help others understand necessary compromises. I'd have to do the same thing if I was running Pilotedge. This is just an example. Keith is safe from any hostile takeovers, at least by me.

Seriously, I wasn't thinking about additional personnel, but using technology to serve the purpose. The controllers don't actually look at the aircraft on the scope in real-time (although it is very close). No, the blips/data tags that are displayed are delayed some seconds which refresh constantly. Seems like the same time delay could be applied to each controller transmission...

• Controller issues a command (transmission) in real-time which is recorded by the "system"...
• The "system" processes the transmission according to the radio frequency by adjusting the pitch, but leaving the cadence (speed) of the command alone...
• The "system" broadcasts the pitch-adjusted command to the pilot.

The effect is every frequency has it's "own" pseudo-controller. Given we are liable to remain with the status quo for sometime, any effort toward producing the above should not be a waste of time. The primary caveat to this improvement, is Pilotedge is still in start-up mode. This is why Keith is still working his tail off. As a result, the focus must needs be on putting food on the table and priming the pump until Pilotedge can support itself. I suspect it won't be until Keith can fall on the couch expressing, "Finally!" Now, if some enterprising, bright, philanthropic and generous individual was to code this idea into a turnkey working app which could be safely installed into the PE infrastructure....

[Calvin Waterbury]

...
If people want to fly in a specific area in the sim for entertainment or curiosity, I'm all for it....

I was really happy to read this. With all the real life and sim aviation our family has been involved recently, we have spread ourselves pretty thin and I've been concerned about losing touch. I was intending to ask if our family could use the network for a private family fly-in on Friday nights to reconnect, but I see you have anticipated me. Thanks!

FYI - Your stills of your nation tour have provoked me to do the same with my family. The only thing we are going to do different is each week a different family member will pick the compass heading, so our tour will appear somewhat random to the observer.

Do we need to adhere to any guidelines to prevent our flights from interfering with Pilotedge ATC when we are on the network?

[Keith Smith]

Calvin,

There are multiple aspects of the pitch-altering proposal which are problematic. My reasons for not going for the idea are not only related to development availability. Operationally, it has problems, and I believe it will harm us more than it will help us. This is why I have never publicly or privately shown any interest in this idea. I cannot spend unlimited time walking through various technical and operational discussions, so in this case, I'm simply going to say that I don't believe it's the right solution for PilotEdge. The right solution for PilotEdge is to have more controllers online, and we are working on mechanisms to allow that to happen (in the form of single-sector checkouts that will vastly expand our rosters, something that was in the plan from day 1).

[Keith Smith]

I'm detecting a theme of restlessness where solutions are being proposed, with an underlying assumption that the network will continue to operate as it is indefinitely. The state of the network right now is not what the network will look like in the future. The number of controllers and concurrent aircraft will be significantly higher. This is why you don't see me jumping at technical solutions to these short term issues. I want to focus my energy on getting to that state.