PilotEdge Forums

I'd like feedback on the following idea.

Online controllers often adjust their interactions with pilots based on what the controller perceives to be in best interests of the pilot. For example, if we know that someone is a real-world, current pilot, and they turn the wrong way on a procedure, we can briefly point it out and get them back on track. If we perceive that the pilot is actually not familiar with the fundamentals of the procedure to begin with, then the message we deliver will be different, and will be designed to help them get back on track AND understand the procedure.

First question, is that a reasonable and worthwhile approach to doing business with pilots on the network? I think so, but would like to hear other opinions on it.

The limitation of this approach, though, is that it requires the controller to either make a guess about the pilot's level of ability, or it requires pre-existing knowledge garnered from previous interactions. This works fine with a small community of pilots, but it doesn't scale very well as the community grows.

To the proposal, then. Would it be useful (for the pilots) to be able to specify their experience level (either in their profile when they register, or when they connect to the network)? This would remove most of the guess work, and would allow controllers to tailor their interactions right out of the gate.

It would be somewhat like selecting the difficulty level on a video game. This would not be a competition...there are no points for specifying the 'hardest' difficulty level. It would purely be for the purpose of delivering an experience to each pilot that best suits their needs, and helps them get the most out of the network.

Put simply, a pilot can only learn so much on a given flight. We don't want to over-saturate aspiring pilots with too much information, but at the same time, we don't want to let little items slip for pilots who are looking to fly with maximum realism.

In essence, the two questions an online controller should ask himself about each pilot are, "how much do you know about flying an airplane, and how realistic do you want this to be?"

Instead of us taking a guess, or getting to know each pilot individually, why not just have a system that lets a pilot furnish that information (privately) up front so that controllers can give them the best experience right out of the gate?

Detailed feedback on this topic would be greatly appreciated. It's not something I can take action on right away, necessarily, but it's something I'd like to seriously consider for the future. Done properly, I feel like this might become one of the most important features of the whole network. I'm curious if that's just wishful thinking, or if other pilots think it's equally useful.

I think it is a great idea to have the pilots list their experience and how realistic they want it to be. I am still learning myself and one of the things I like about pilotedge the most is that it is realistic but also forgiving if you make a mistake. Also if you make a mistake most of the time I have been told what I did wrong, what I should've done, and why. I imagine others like this as well, but some may not need the controller to go into that much detail about what they should've done and why, and some may need more detail. I agree this could be one of the most important features, and one of the most helpful for the pilots and the controllers.

This is an awesome idea Keith, I love this both from the pilots perspective and the controller side for the reasons that have been mentioned. Beyond being able to tailor feedback, it will also be extremely helpful to have a good idea what level of proficiency to expect from pilots as well when trying to decide things such as whether to clear the pilot from an IAF (easier for the controller in some instances) or whether they will need vectors, for example.

Keith
Great idea with one reservation. If there is instruction taking place on the same ATC frequency that experienced pilots are flying on then the realism might be diminished for the experienced pilots. If the instruction could take place on a discrete frequency then this would be a win-win for everyone. It might also be useful to have the ability for some type of correspondence between the pilots and PE before getting on the network. This would allow the pilot to communicate specific goals or learning objectives prior to actually getting on the network and would allow the PE expert to communicate ideas on how best to accomplish the goals.

Keith, a splendid idea. This will really help people get exactly what they want out of the system.

Personally I'm trying to become a better pilot for my real-world flying, so I'm looking for any kind of feedback that helps me. I think Clof-flys has a point though in that a conversation with me and a controller about what I've messed up might detract from his own (or others) experience in the system. Maybe there's a way to have feedback that isn't real time. Can the pilot email the controller with a question after the flight? Can the controller email the pilot with helpful advice?

Kieth:
You guys keep right on point out my errors when I make them. My entire reason for being on PE is to learn instrument flight and sharpen my radio skills. I could fly all day using the built in ATC in Xplanes and not learn a thing. I absolutely appreciate the education I have gained thus far from you and Eugene. I even appreciate the incredibly complex departure Eugene threw at me the other night. That thing had more steps than the Macarena!

If I may run into it in the real world, then feel free to throw it at me on PE. If I do it wrong then tell me.

Keith,

I agree with Mark's post that critique and instruction are a good idea but it should be to a point. If it is quick feedback or critique, then it is perfectly fine to talk about it on the ATC frequency. If it will be a significant debrief item, then it would be better to talk on a discrete frequency. The good thing is that this is a training environment and you do not have to fear the dreaded "Contact Tower or Los Angeles Center when you land" call in which you have to explain yourself in order to prevent yourself from getting violated. : )

Wish we had a digital ATIS or METAR so we can check weather prior to descent

Keep up the great work!

Thanks,

Rudy

Agreed, there is a limit to how much discussion should happen on freq before it might begin to diminish the immersion level for others on the frequency. I will keep that in mind.

Rudy, X-Plane does have limited ATIS capability built-in, PE doesn't interfere with that. You might not be aware of that capability because if you've flown on VATSIM with XSquawkbox, that capability is removed, and replaced with their own voice ATIS system, and ability to query real world METARs directly from the client.

Also, there is the briefer in xplane. Plug in the airports you fly from-to and if gives you a rough simulation of a weather briefing over the phone.


I like the feedback I get on PE because it is delivered in a positive manner and with the honest intention of training. One big turn off I found with vatsim was rudeness from a few of the controllers. The attitude I got from a few of them was "if you want to file ifr then come back when you are ifr rated."

With PE, kieth can correct my antiquated and out of date terminology, and it is okay to try new processes. It is a great training environment.