Let's talk about the PilotEdge Expansion!

[stevekirks]

I would like to respectively request that any announcement made on Facebook also be make on the PE home page or in the PE forums.

I'll 'third' it here too. FB is a necessary evil in my life, but I avoid checking it when possible. I wouldn't consider the FB thing an announcement, but maybe a teaser (?) because when PE does announcements, they have 'press release' text and posts on the homepage.

[Keith Smith]

Absolutely, it was a teaser, not much else. Formal announcements will be made via a press release on the home page and also via direct email to each subscriber (especially for something of this magnitude).

I try to echo most of the significant FB posts in the forum as well but because that one was really just a teaser, it never made it here.

[Keith Smith]

So, in the interest of completeness, here are some details on the expansion.

We'll be providing a new area of coverage which includes these airports on a full time basis: SEA, PDX, SLC, DEN, ASE, PHX. SFO will also be covered as part of this new area.

Additionally, we'll provide part time coverage for: OAK, SJC, RNO, MRY, SMF, GEG, YKM, EGE, ABQ. "Part time" means that we'll cover ONE of those fields at a time for a period of two weeks before closing it and moving to the next one in the list. Think of it as a temporary bonus field.

If you do not see an airport on this list, then it is not going to receive ATC service as part of this expansion.

The spirit of the expansion is to provide a wider range of city pairs for transport category jets (airliners), but it will also be of interest to biz jets and some turboprop folks. This is why we're covering such a wide area (with a small number of controllers) and a relatively small number of airports. The rotating bonus field concept gives you some variety in the city pairs. Combine that with all the fields in ZLA and you end up with a rich assortment of jet flights that don't have to involve SFO or LAS at one end of each leg.

This will be an add-on subscription, pricing will be announced when we're ready to launch. Timing will be a short number of months, much of the infrastructure work is already done (Peter's been working on it for a while now), but we're still awaiting data from the FAA to complete the infrastructure. Then we can get the staff trained on the airspace and get it launched.

[bradthepilotguy]

So Keith, just to be clear:

The additional coverage comes with additional cost?

[Keith Smith]

Yes. It's being staffed separately to the new area. This means there is increased cost on our end to provide service in the new area. If we were going to add it to the airspace worked by existing controllers, we wouldn't need to increase the cost. However, as you might suspect, it's just not possible to add that amount of airspace to the existing controlling positions.

Also, to be clear, it will be optional to add this area to your existing subscription. It will only cost more if you actually add it to your subscription (somewhat like a premium cable channel).

[Ryan B]

So say I want to fly from KLAX to KDEN. There is ATC coverage all the way there much like when flying to SFO? How are controlled airports near the DEN airport handled? Example APA - if I filed KLAX to KAPA would I get service into the DEN tracon area then get terminated nearing APA? Or is this just not possible?

[Keith Smith]

We hope there are enough fields being covered such that fflights to the satellites aren't a common operation.

We prefer to provide full service to the fields we do operate. These controllers are going to run 5 ARTCCs at the same time. Satellite ops will be discouraged if not flat out denied. We'll discuss internally and make a decision prior to launch.

controllers won't necessarily know where the satellites are and the sops won't have any guidance on them.

[Keith Smith]

and yes, full coverage to or from DEN, along with all of the other full time airports posted above, and the bi monthly bonus fields.

[stevekirks]

Yes. It's being staffed separately to the new area. This means there is increased cost on our end to provide service in the new area. If we were going to add it to the airspace worked by existing controllers, we wouldn't need to increase the cost. However, as you might suspect, it's just not possible to add that amount of airspace to the existing controlling positions.

Also, to be clear, it will be optional to add this area to your existing subscription. It will only cost more if you actually add it to your subscription (somewhat like a premium cable channel).

I'm asking this as a devil's advocate:

If I'm a PE base subscriber and want to fly to Denver, then I'll get a "radar service terminated" handoff at the ZLA border, right? Will the controllers know who to service and who to skip?

I'll buy it, I'm sure, but I can only imagine the complexity. Let's say that three people are flying to Denver and one has premium. Will the other two be forced to disconnect? The one with premium will have "drone" traffic in that case at FL310.

It's a tough nut to crack I'm sure.

Steve

[Daniel Kofman]

I'm asking this as a devil's advocate:

If I'm a PE base subscriber and want to fly to Denver, then I'll get a "radar service terminated" handoff at the ZLA border, right? Will the controllers know who to service and who to skip?

I'll buy it, I'm sure, but I can only imagine the complexity. Let's say that three people are flying to Denver and one has premium. Will the other two be forced to disconnect? The one with premium will have "drone" traffic in that case at FL310.

It's a tough nut to crack I'm sure.

Steve

Was wondering the same...?