Wishing PE was a little bigger, a little sooner

[Keith Smith]

It's obviously not a density thing.. (back to my original point).

If it's a cost thing... I'd like to brainstorm on how to solve it. I, for one, would be willing to pay 5x more (upwards of $100/mo) for full coverage.... for example.

I appreciate that, but we went down this road, internally, many times before starting the network. How many others do you think would be willing to pay that amount month over month? We've done that research, and the answer is "almost none." For that to work, you'd need to get 4x as many people as we have right now to pay 5x as much as they're currently paying, and then some to cover the additional management and training overhead (that reminds me, increasing the roster by a factor of 20x doesn't happen quickly).

Alternatively, you'd need to increase the user base by 20x with current subscription levels for that to work (not including management overhead).

The very next complaint you'll hear is people wondering why the ATC voices are the same on all their frequencies within a facility when they're paying $100+/mth (if you go with the increased subscription cost), why nobody ever sees another plane, why all the airports are empty, and so on. Be careful what you wish for You could cover the whole country and have almost the same set of problems, except for the 'small coverage area' issue. And, you will never be able to solve the traffic density issue for everyone if you cover the whole country. You can get to 10,000+ concurrent flights...which would require a user base of 1,000,000+ pilots. At that point, you'd mirror real world traffic levels, where most towered airports are STILL relatively quiet.

It doesn't scale, in my opinion.

[brianshell]

Keith, I appreciate the detailed and thought-out reply. You've answered my questions as to the "why" and "why not" of the expansion into other areas, and that was primarily what I wanted to understand. Your product is obviously superior to other options out there in every possible way, with the exception of coverage-area. If there was a way to solve that cost effectively, I wanted to know how to help! =)

I will continue to fly with VATSIM and PE, and continue to tell anyone and everyone I know in hopes of expanding the network and making PE more and more sustainable!

Thanks!

[brianshell]

One interesting thought (if it were possible from a training perspective) would be to have a temporary coverage area that changed each quarter. "For Q3, we'll be covering ZLD"..

This would give pilots a chance to try a variety of airspaces, airports, and transitions. Keeping ZLA, of course, all the time.

This might be a massive burden from a training perspective, in which case, disregard... just trying to think of ways to keep it interesting. =)

[Nick Warren]

One interesting thought (if it were possible from a training perspective) would be to have a temporary coverage area that changed each quarter. "For Q3, we'll be covering ZLD"..

This would give pilots a chance to try a variety of airspaces, airports, and transitions. Keeping ZLA, of course, all the time.

This might be a massive burden from a training perspective, in which case, disregard... just trying to think of ways to keep it interesting. =)

Considering real world controllers (who I believe some of those controlling on the network to be or students thereof) spend the first few years at their assigned facility just learning procedures for one given slice of a very large pie, I would tend to agree with your hypothesis that this would be a massive burden for training. I do not live in the area covered by PE, but have learned to appreciate its offerings and diversity. Regarding your OP, there is an immense amount of VFR training that you can achieve through PE some of which includes airspace diversity (all classes represented in ZLA), VFR cooridors, and a whole slough of playgrounds to go play around in. You have the option for voice CTAF which is unheard of on the other network, and you can go out and practice stalls, slow flight, 8's, and whatever else all the while having to watch out for other aircraft (drones) doing the same thing which is again something not offered on the other network. PE is an extremely valuable tool in its current capacity, but as you cite, it certainly isn't the other network. Something I think many users on here are thankful for in it's own right.

Nick

[bruce]

.. just trying to think of ways to keep it interesting. =)

Don't know what types of flights you've been conducting on PE not to keep it interesting. Try the different Bravo vfr transitions, always challenging. Fly vfr without flight following making all the calls on time & not violating any airspace. Pick up your ifr clearance in the air, on the ground. Fly SIDS & STARS into congested areas.
The plane fact is that to populate the whole of the US to the same high PE standard would take an immense amount of training & many more Controllers, all at a cost.

On Vatsim/IVAO, because of time zones etc I could never fly where I wanted to, rather I would have to "follow the controller" (some good, some not so good) who frequently close down before the flight was completed & sometimes before.

Give me PE, with all its geographical limitations. At least they are always there to the same consistent high standard.

[Keith Smith]

One interesting thought (if it were possible from a training perspective) would be to have a temporary coverage area that changed each quarter. "For Q3, we'll be covering ZLD"..

This would give pilots a chance to try a variety of airspaces, airports, and transitions. Keeping ZLA, of course, all the time.

This might be a massive burden from a training perspective, in which case, disregard... just trying to think of ways to keep it interesting. =)

Brian, it took close to a year to build the SOP's and sector files for the existing coverage area. It takes experienced controllers several months to get checked out in the airspace that we control today. The idea of moving shop every few months has been brought up and shot down many times for those reasons. Nick had it right in his response, and you had it right in your last sentence.

Looking at your stats, you've completed 14 flights, utilizing a total of 5 airports. I'm struggling to understand why you're running out of ways to 'keep it interesting' when you've barely scratched the surface of what we already offer within ZLA. There are close to 80,000 city pair combinations within the entire service area. Once you've shot every approach at every airport several times, then I'll better understand where you're coming from, but if you're running out of ideas at ZLA after hitting 5 airports, then I think you're missing an opportunity to dig deeper into the airports we do cover.

[wmburns]

I wanted to add my 0.02 to the topic of Vatsim verses PilotEdge. I spent some time on Vatsim before starting the PilotEdge trial. So this gives me some experience to compare to.

Everything that follows is my opinion based upon my experience.

On Vatsim the attendance is very good during an Event. Outside of an Event, finding controllers can be a challenge. I remember many a nights "shopping" for an online controller. Go to an airport and work on a flight plan. Get ready to file the plan and then the controller logs off for the night.

Contrast this with PilotEdge. There's a 100% chance that during published hours there will be a controller online. No more wasted time looking for a controller.

I still fly Vatsim but now only during "Events".

As for keeping it interesting, what I have been doing is fly to/from the "Focus Fields" on the PilotEdge home page. I rarely can fly at the times posted, but the focus fields forces me to plan a flight that I might not otherwise think of. Many fields have ODP procedures that require study/briefing before starting.

I have also had a number of interesting flights using RW weather when the weather is near minimums. Things that rarely happened on Vatsim because Vatsim tends to focus on the bigger airports.

Add to equation the high quality of the ATC in my opinion PilotEdge is the clear winner.

[Keith Smith]

Brian,

One more thing I just saw you in your original post...

As a VFR-pilot-in-training, I find that I get more value with a half-baked controller flying transitions that are real to ME compared to having a fully-realistic experience in airspace I will probably never fly in. In this respect, I guess PE is more of a training tool for IFR pilots -- and has limited utility for VFR pilots.

I violently disagree on this one. I live and fly in New Jersey, yet I practice VFR procedures on PE all the time. As we tell commercial prospects all the time..."airspace is airspace...and YOUR airspace just isn't that special."

Class B is Class B wherever you go. Class C is Class C wherever you go. Class D is Class D wherever you go.

If you get TOO attached and comfortable with your airspace, and are unable to QUICKLY scan a sectional chart for unfamiliar airspace, then your ability to fly outside of ZLC, real world, will be limited. I'll probably not get a chance to fly as PIC in Socal airspace any time soon, but I HAVE had a chance to fly as PIC, VFR all up and down the east coast and through much of the mid-west and the south. Guess what gave me the confidence to fly in ANY airspace in the country in any weather condition? Thousands of hours flying online with ATC.

The only time 'local' practice can be handy is for Special Flight Rules Areas such as the NY SFRA. But, those are few and far between. Other than that, one Class B looks much the same as the next (procedurally). "Your airspace just isn't that special"....and yes, I've played in the ZLC Class B on VATSIM in the past.

[mats77]

I think the PE coverage is just perfect in size. And I find the area of choice very interesting.

This is my story, and the reasons behind the above statements:

I'm currently working on my Private Pilot License. I have been a flight simulation enthusiast for most of my life, so doing all kinds of practice in the simulator instantly became a natural part of my real-world flight training.

Up until spring this year, I had not heard of PE, just VATSIM. Before knowing about PE, I had connected to VATSIM several times, but there were never any controllers online, so I found it boring. (I live in Northern Europe, more specifically Sweden, and the population is rather sparse here, so I guess that explains it. I wanted to fly in my own area, of course.) Then one day early summer this year I read about PE (can't remember where) and signed up for the trial period. That was the beginning of something amazing.

But it took a while before I had the confident to make my first call on the radio...

To begin with, I had to study the VFR maps (I only fly VFR, and will probably stay doing so all the time). They differ a lot from the ones that we have here in Sweden. The US maps are much more busy, so it took a while just to get a basic grip on them (the tutorial videos linked from this site were/are especially helpful). Then we have the airspace classes. In Sweden we only have C and G, so I had to study B, D and E too. And finally, the radio phraseology. Sure, it is supposed to be a world-wide standardized aviation language, but still, there are some minor discrepancies that I had to find out.

I started out doing some flights around non-towered airports, making calls on the CTAF frequency. Nobody shouted at me or sent me a angry e-mails, so I guess I succeeded in staying out of the controlled airspace! Next step was to take-off from a class D airport. I did that, but wow, was I nervous! I did a couple of those flights, i.e. taking-off from class D for a non-towered airport landing. It went fine. My next step was to fly into a class D airport and land. It went well too, and was a lot of fun! This is how far I have got at this point. My next step is to try flight following, and later also enter class C (just need to refresh those airspace rules a bit first).

With the current coverage of PE, I see that I can keep flying for almost an indefinitely period of time. Not just the fact that there are so many combinations of airports (as Keith mentions in a previous post), but also because of the airspace design, and the way it looks. For example, last night I scanned through the VFR maps looking for an interesting VFR opportunity -- I found one rather quick: Taking off from Perris Valley (L65), making a quick turn to the Northeast to avoid the class C airspace ranging from surface and up, then stay below another C sector with its floor at 2900 ft, staying on the East side of a small mountain, get out of the class C sector above by rounding a small lake, go up North and climb thousand feet or so to avoid crashing into another mountain, call the San Bernardino (SBD; class D) tower for landing, and finally land there. All this in 10-15 intense minutes. Not a single moment of resting or enjoying the view! Just constant checking of location, maps, heading, altitude, radio, clearances, speed etc. What a thrill! For me, I find the pre-flight planning a great pleasure too. I have paper maps, so I draw the true tracks on those, then calculate compass headings based on wind, deviation and variation. It is a lot of fun scanning for those interesting and challenging flights in the maps -- I believe there are, more or less, an unlimited number of those in the PE coverage area.

And when the planning is done and I'm ready to fly, I can connect to PE knowing that there is a controller online. That is worth every penny. And the controllers are extremely professional (although I haven't got that many real-world hours of radio talk to compare with, yet).

I just realized the other day that flying (in my flight simulator) without the online service that PE provides, is becoming less and less fun. No one to talk to. No one cares if you violate controlled airspaces. No radio chatter. Nothing.

I find PE cheap for the quality service it offers. (I have the hourly plan now, but will soon switch to the monthly.) Okay, I admit, I would probably not be ready for a 5-6 times price increase, but today's pricing is definitely very much beneficial for the customers.

I really wish and hope that more people find PE, so that the customer base increases. Not because I want more simultaneous traffic (I personally don't care about that), but because I want PE to be financially secured so that it can stay around for many years to come. I'll do my best to promote the service to my fellow aviation friends at my local aero club. It is indeed a great training tool, even for us on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Have a nice day!

[Keith Smith]

Thanks for taking the time to post that, mats. I think you have captured the spirit of what this is all about, and what this can bring to your simulation experience. We're working on a new VFR training program (the current one only has 3 flights, and the jump from V1 to V2 skips straight to class C airports with flight following). It's not that the V2 is difficult, but there are a lot of steps that could be introduced prior to that. Funnily enough, your sample flight from a non-towered flight to a Class D airport is the 2nd flight in this new series of 11 that we're building