PilotEdge Forums

I've only been on PE for less than a month.. so bear with me while I rant for a bit...

We're being told that the reason PE only has a very small coverage area (basically, SoCal, SFO, and Vegas) is because there are a very limited number of pilots on PE at any given time, and therefore, in order to make the experience feel more real, it makes sense to consolidate all the pilots into a smaller area. Totally agree on this point... except for one problem: Even when the area is consolidated down, I almost never run into any other pilots... I've noticed that in the evenings, there are only 3 to 4 pilots online at any given time -- LESS during the day. I've even tried flying in or out of the same airports they're at, but crossing paths with them is exceptionally rare. Indeed, the skies feel very lonely when I'm connected to PE.

So if the trade-off for having a small coverage area is "lots of pilots" -- I would argue that it's a false perception... And if we can't have "lots of pilots in the area" with a small coverage area, I would RATHER have a LARGE coverage area.... since there is seemingly no trade-off. (Even if PE covered the entire U.S., I'm still statistically unlikely to run into any other pilots).

After talking to some avid VATSIM guys, their biggest reason for avoiding PE was lack of coverage for their favorite airspace. Boy can I relate to this... SoCal is a fun area to fly in, but as a sim enthusiast, I can tell you it's getting old and I often find myself switching over to VATSIM so I can fly my favorite areas. (ZLC airspace). 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.

Given that the vision of consolidating pilots into a small geographic area isn't solving the problem it set out to solve.... I would like to ask ... what's the REAL cost of expanding the coverage area ?? Is it training? Realism? (Because controllers can't be familiar with everything?) Additional staff required? Would a sizable one-time donation help persuade an expansion?

The VATSIM controllers drive me nuts... but I'm having more fun over there.

I cannot possibly disagree any more.

I will not buy into the fact that a diluted product over a broader area will add more live pilots, it would simply make congestion less dense. If you participated in a special event (although you may have) on the PE network, you will see the result in certain airports generating more live traffic given an excuse.

Simple business logic maintains that growth takes time, and as an early member, I have seen this growth in the traffic.

We would all like to see more live traffic, but a broader area with a similar customer base would be the same as dropping a professional sports team in a remote area. There is only so much available traffic until it gains momentum.

Just my two cents.


Lee

lwilliams wrote:I will not buy into the fact that a diluted product over a broader area will add more live pilots, it would simply make congestion less dense.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make... I can't imagine PilotEdge being "less dense" than it already is... For example, at the time I'm posting this, there are exactly THREE pilots online right now... and if "special events" are the solution, then those would continue to be the solution in a larger coverage area.

Having a small coverage area is simply not succeeding in providing density... So I'd rather have the alternative.

I've been a member at PilotEdge since the beta days and I can say that I couldn't be happier here! I would MUCH rather fly in a smaller geographic area with professional controllers who know what they are doing than fly in a huge airspace with a bunch of teenaged controllers. I know they aren't all teenagers, but the controllers on VATSIM are a far cry from the controllers on PE. The guys here know there stuff and part of that is the concentrated coverage area. As it is, they have to know a lot of information to provide the quality of coverage for the area currently available. If you're on PE for the training, then you should be pleased with that quality.

The ZLA area has some of the most complex airspace in the world and is a perfect training ground to prepare you for just about any place you might real world fly. What you learn on PE is definitely transferrable to any area you fly. I live in Montana and I would love to have PE coverage for Montana, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I have actually had the opportunity to real world fly in the ZLA area out of KIZA and my experience on PE definitely came in handy.

This may come across snide, but I think you may have missed the point of PilotEdge.

Steven Winslow wrote:I've been a member at PilotEdge since the beta days and I can say that I couldn't be happier here! I would MUCH rather fly in a smaller geographic area with professional controllers who know what they are doing than fly in a huge airspace with a bunch of teenaged controllers. I know they aren't all teenagers, but the controllers on VATSIM are a far cry from the controllers on PE. The guys here know there stuff and part of that is the concentrated coverage area.

On the point of the quality of VATSIM (or lack thereof), you and I couldn't agree more. But I believe you are in an extremely tiny minority when you say that you would much rather fly in a smaller geographic area to get that level of professionalism. Other simmers are voting with their wallets in that regard... Meaning.. they're voting for VATSIM.

Steven Winslow wrote:As it is, they have to know a lot of information to provide the quality of coverage for the area currently available. If you're on PE for the training, then you should be pleased with that quality.

I hear echoes of my original post / question... is TRAINING one of the reasons expansion is not possible? If so, I can buy that.. and perhaps some compromises can be made for non-ZLA airspace coverage if that's what it takes to get it...

Steven Winslow wrote:The ZLA area has some of the most complex airspace in the world and is a perfect training ground to prepare you for just about any place you might real world fly. What you learn on PE is definitely transferrable to any area you fly. I live in Montana and I would love to have PE coverage for Montana, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I have actually had the opportunity to real world fly in the ZLA area out of KIZA and my experience on PE definitely came in handy.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with the ZLA airspace... quite the contrary, I agree with all you've said. I'm questioning the reasons for limiting the PE coverage area to -just- ZLA. If we believe the experience will somehow deteriorate as a result, then I'd like to understand those reasons. But I refuse to accept "density" as the reason (even though that's the card that seems to be played).

Steven Winslow wrote:This may come across snide, but I think you may have missed the point of PilotEdge.

Feel free to mark my words on this... but at some point, PE is going to have to decide who it wants to cater to.... I see a few choices:

If the intention is to ONLY cater to flight schools and students, then PE will eventually be forced to expand its coverage area, since most flight schools are not going to accept (long term) training of their pilots in an airspace they don't fly in. (See the reasons PE recently had to add SFO to the coverage area!).. PE has opted to expand on an as-needed basis to attract revenue, but has already discovered that customers prefer coverage in the area they're located. Expand the coverage area, and you'll expand your available pool of customers.

If the intention is to try and cater to sim enthusiasts, PE will have to expand its coverage area, since the number of sim enthusiasts who will accept flying in a very small portion of the country in exchange for professional ATC is going to be VERY small. (This place isn't exactly growing like crazy, as point-proof). There is a strong argument to be made that if the coverage area were expanded, the customer base would open up pretty dramatically.

I don't know if this is a good business move or not since I can't comment on the cost associated with the expansion. This is what I'm really trying to understand. It may well be that PE is in a lose-lose situation (can't expand due to cost... can't attract new customers due to lack of expansion). Regardless of the target audience for this service, PE is going to have to expand beyond ZLA. Density is not the thing that will drive this. (As proven by the SFO expansion... Seeing a pilot in the SFO airspace is extremely rare).

I actually find that most of the simmers I talk to in various online forums are FULLY aware of PilotEdge... so we need to ask ourselves... why are they not opening their wallet to get it? I am theorizing that it's because of the lack of coverage (mostly because of comments I've heard and read that outright say this).. While price is certainly a factor, most sim enthusiasts shell out far more money for far less... so I hesitate to blame it solely on cost.

Regardless, for me at least, the lack of density combined with the lack of coverage makes PE a boring place once you get past the first few flights.

2 pilots online now. (Down from three earlier). PE is a ghost-town.

If PE is a ghost town, then so is VATSIM.
Coverage on VATSIM is no better than PE. You cannot just go anywhere you want on VATSIM and expect to have controllers there. It has always been a ghost town for me. More so than PE.
I would say that the majority of PE users came over from VATSIM to give it a try. Some stayed, some went back and some use both.
IMHO, I think you are comparing apples to oranges here. They are completely two different types of services.
I have flown on VATSIM for years and was frustrated at the lack of coverage at controlled airports, having to find where the "hot" spots were every time you logged on, no one knowing all the proper ATC rules, having controllers log off at any time at a moments notice. All a free service, so people understand and tolerate it for that fact.

For all the opposite reasons is why I prefer PE.
Keith has put together a piece of the puzzle that was sorely missing. Professional ATC service for those who want it.

If you want some sort of a solution to your issue, why don't you fly on VATSIM when not in SOCAL, and if you are entering SOCAL, land at a nearby airport, log on to PE and continue your flight. Fun both ways!

We all fly for a variety of reasons, the point is we all fly and now have more of a choice of what we would prefer.

I will say this again... Two different services, apples and oranges

Once again, there's nothing in your post I disagree with.... I just want to understand the "why not" for broader coverage of PE.

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.

Being a VATSIM and mostly IVAO member since 2002, I could't be more happier with what I can get here over PE. There's no point turning it into a bigger thing since those networks and PE have quite different goals. Although I do enjoy flying in California, I'm more concerning about learning real flight and communication skills rather than sightseeing and entertainment.

Just my 2 cents.

I'm obviously not going to be an official commentator on the cost (since I don't know dev costs), but if we hypothetically expanded to all ARTCCs, you would need to pay a very large sum of money simply for FAA data that we use. It doesn't come cheap. Then factor in controllers to staff the facility (let's say 2 per ARTCC excluding HCF/ZAN = 20 x 2 = 40 controllers), and that adds up relatively quickly per hour assuming the operating hours remain the same.

On top of that, how many people would be willing to pay the $100-400 per month just to get service where ever you fly? I would think it's a very small number.

One of the reasons PE is successful is its focus on one area and making it as real as possible WHILE keeping costs low. Expansion at this time I think would be a mistake. Let's work on getting ZLA/SFO consistantly busy and then we'll talk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: I just worked here. I don't make business decisions. Keith is the official answer here.

The markets that we're targeting with this network are not a secret. Most of the markets are listed right on the home page on the section that says "PilotEdge is for..."

I'm sorry you're frustrated by the lack of traffic at the times you've flown. Most evening in the last two weeks have seen pretty healthy traffic levels, where the controllers are talking quite frequently. As long as you're hearing a controller talking and having to listen for your callsign, then I think the network doing as well as can be expected. Would it be nice if every channel was worked by a different controller? Yes. Would it be nice if every channel had a reasonable number of pilots on it? Sure. Let's talk about why that is impossible to achieve.

The 'traffic density' argument is perfectly valid, btw. The real world National Airspace System is able to house over 5000 real world IFR flights, plus thousands of VFR flights all at the same time, and the reality is, there are tons of places that are still a ghost town even with those huge traffic levels.

Opening up more airspace doesn't necessarily bring high traffic density in the ONE area that matters...which is where YOU are flying. Do you care if an airport 2000nm away is buzzing with planes? You shouldn't, because their presence doesn't affect your flight one bit. All that matter is planes being close enough to you that the controller you are talking with is also talking to them. So, yes, I stand by the traffic density argument. And yes, there are times the network is quiet. I make no apologies for that, I can't force people to fly. All we can do is provide consistent service and try to get the word out there. I'm working on saving enough funds to try some additional retail marketing strategies, but I'm not sure you appreciate just how much money it takes to run the company as is. I can say that we are working on securing deals with commercial clients that will bring larger volumes of traffic to the network on a regular basis (although we'll have to add additional concurrent controlling positions to accommodate that).

That actually brings us to issue #2, which Ryan eluded to in his post. Expanding airspace means having more controllers online at the same time (just in case you were hoping that we could expand without having additional controllers online). Pick any reasonable pay scale for the controllers, then do the math on 15 hours a day, 7 days a week, 1-2 controllers per facility, 20+ facilities. You instantly have a liability of many tens of thousands of dollars per WEEK in payroll. Even with money the bank to support that for a year, I simply don't think the market is large enough to support that burn rate. We'd absolutely have more customers, sure, but the traffic density in each facility would be worse than it is now, by and large and the increase in subscribers would not make up for the massive expenditure. Ultimately, the venture would operate at a loss, long term, unless you charge MASSIVE subscription rates. There's zero evidence that the sim enthusiast market will support 3 figure per month subscription rates.

With more controllers comes more management and training costs, too.

One more thing to consider, it may be a warm and fuzzy feeling to see a bunch of jets going from EWR to LAX at FL340, but unless they're really close together while they're enroute (which not going to happen outside of events), the ONLY thing you're going to hear is ONE check-in per center sector of, "Center, UAL123, level FL340." "UAL123, [ARTCC name] center, roger."

For the markets we pursue, the size of the coverage area isn't critical to the success of the venture. It would be NICE to have, no question, but it would be a toxic anchor that would drag the company down within seconds.

That is as direct and transparent an answer as I can give. If you're a sim enthusiast and you're feeling cramped/bored by the coverage area, then this there are other places that would ultimately be better, as they offer the promise of a larger coverage area, albeit on a random basis (in terms of controlling quality and schedules).

We just did get a little bigger, btw, we added SFO to the coverage area, doing it in such as way that it ultimately didn't cost the company any more to operate. The reality is that there are very few expansions we can do of that nature, though. We simply can't throw more onto the heap of responsibilities associated with the existing controlling positions. I'm grateful the existing controllers accepted the task of handling SFO. I'm glad that I control here as well as run the company, though, because being on the scope gives me a good feel for what I can reasonably ask of the controllers, and where that line is. Adding SFO is one thing. Adding more facilities, though, while maintaining the level of quality that we offer is something entirely different.

I can understand the reasoning behind most of your post, but I disagree that "PE is a ghostown." That's a massive generalization. There are times when it is...and there are times when it isn't. There's also a connotation there that it's 'dead', is not providing value, and/or is not sustainable. I would violently disagree with that (if that was not part of the intention in choosing that word, then disregard.)

I also want to point out that even when the network is quiet, you can still fly and have a great training experience. I can't tell you how many times I've done real world flights where I've called for radio checks every 15 minutes just to make sure the radio is still working. It's not always full throttle mayhem out there Our goal is to provide professional ATC for simulators. We can't and don't promise real world traffic levels.

I would encourage you to think about WHY you want to fly with ATC. Our primary differentiation from the home user perspective is that we are the only network that provides ATC on a daily, recurring schedule with this level of quality (if I'm wrong, let me know). Expansion comes at massive cost with very little additional training value. The potential market size of sim enthusiasts who are willing to pay for ATC is not big enough to offset the cost of running that business, even if we had the marketing dollars to get the word out there.