Re: Let's talk about the PilotEdge Expansion!
Posted: Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:03 am
This is a very exciting list of airports. If the issue of satellite airports is still up for debate, I think including a few would have a lot of benefit for PE and its users. My suggestion is for each of the proposed additional airports to include coverage for any satellite airports that lie partially or completely under the shelf of the primary airport. For example KAPA and KBJC at KDEN. This would provide a lot of benefits.
Benefits to PE GA pilots:
Obviously, ability to conduct local operations in our home Deltas while flying in areas closer to home around/under/through Charlies and Bravos that are already staffed.
Benefits to PE ATP pilots:
Having to contend with GA traffic around these airports is a reality, but usually there aren't too many Cessnas doing pattern work at our Bravo airports. Encouraging GA presence at these additional airports and/or doing transitions through the airspace might improve the realism (cringe?).
Benefits to PE's bottom line:
If GA pilots are able to conduct some meaningful/realistic operations in these areas many more (including me) would likely upgrade to the service. Hopefully enough to cover the cost/burden of getting the (thus far excellent) controllers set up with a few more airspaces. Maybe more flight schools (and there are a lot at the satellites) would sign up as commercial clients with their Redbirds if they had home coverage (but that's admittedly pure speculation).
Other than the additional controller burden, the other major argument against expansion to select satellites would be diffusing the GA traffic, but I would argue that keeping the PE ratings all in the SoCal area will encourage most GA flights to stay in ZLA, so the diffusion and the burden should be pretty low.
I'm not sure how many towered fields are in fact below the proposed expansion fields, but I can't imagine more than 2 or 3 per?
Just 2 cents, great service, and looking forward to the news,
Eric @ KPDX (but actually KVUO)
Benefits to PE GA pilots:
Obviously, ability to conduct local operations in our home Deltas while flying in areas closer to home around/under/through Charlies and Bravos that are already staffed.
Benefits to PE ATP pilots:
Having to contend with GA traffic around these airports is a reality, but usually there aren't too many Cessnas doing pattern work at our Bravo airports. Encouraging GA presence at these additional airports and/or doing transitions through the airspace might improve the realism (cringe?).
Benefits to PE's bottom line:
If GA pilots are able to conduct some meaningful/realistic operations in these areas many more (including me) would likely upgrade to the service. Hopefully enough to cover the cost/burden of getting the (thus far excellent) controllers set up with a few more airspaces. Maybe more flight schools (and there are a lot at the satellites) would sign up as commercial clients with their Redbirds if they had home coverage (but that's admittedly pure speculation).
Other than the additional controller burden, the other major argument against expansion to select satellites would be diffusing the GA traffic, but I would argue that keeping the PE ratings all in the SoCal area will encourage most GA flights to stay in ZLA, so the diffusion and the burden should be pretty low.
I'm not sure how many towered fields are in fact below the proposed expansion fields, but I can't imagine more than 2 or 3 per?
Just 2 cents, great service, and looking forward to the news,
Eric @ KPDX (but actually KVUO)