coma

Normally we keep it serious, flying at towered airports, working with ATC, the whole nine yards. This time, though, we just blew off some steam at a non-towered airport (actually, a private strip, to boot)

There's always room for fun & games, listen to this one of a 747 out of LAX that calls for takeoff clearance when he still has 1/2 mile of taxiing to do...(an Aussie pilot and a pseudo-Australian controller). Don't worry, he doesn't control much anymore. http://assets.pilotedge.net/recordings/archive/early_takeoff.mp3 (from 10 secs to 1min 39secs)

Failures are fine as long as you handle them in a realistic fashion. 747 going GPS direct from LAX to SFO with a 4 engine-out emergency screaming "mayday mayday!!" is not welcome. Realistic emergencies are fine and do not require coordination or permission. The PE plugin for xplane, as an example, monitors bus voltage. If it drops below a certain value, your radio is toast. So, if you're on a flight and the alternator goes offline, you need to do what you'd do in real world, shed load and come up with a plan, particularly if you're in IMC. Those are great emergencies. We also have the technology to check your gear state (though the controllers haven't been trained on that yet) so if you suspect there's a gear problem, you can do a low approach at a towered airport and they'll be able to check it out. Those are all fine. We can actually trigger failures in X-Plane from the scope, a feature we currently reserve for commercial clients but will eventually make available for retail customers as well. Here's a great video of one of our users (who has agreed to let us trigger failures on him without notice for testing). I was watching him stream his flight live on twitch, hopped on the scope as an observer and triggered a bird strike. This is the result: That wasn't what I was referring to when I mentioned dynamic events, though. I actually meant things as simple as, "ground, is Alpha the 2nd left or this one right here?" "Ground, can we pull over here on Alpha for a moment? We need to check something out, should take about 90 seconds." Those simple examples will result in "say again" from any synthetic system. Regarding your concern for beginners, we have pretty thorough training programs to take you through a detailed series of flights with plenty of resources to make sure you're prepared for each flight (cockpit videos, transcripts, etc).

BeechPapa, here's a link to some of the exchanges that took place on the combined radar position during the opening hour of service on PilotEdge today: http://assets.pilotedge.net/recordings/hourly/2015-1-22_8_17510.mp3 How do feel about the clarity and readability there? Note: this link will not work in 3 months from now, that's how long the recordings are kept for QA purposes. And that, right there, is why synthetic ATC systems are going to struggle to gain acceptance among real world pilots. If it's all you've ever used, it's probably ok, but once you've spoken to a real controller and realized that they understand just about everything you say, no matter how you say it, it's very, very hard to accept anything else. There are also many non-standard things that can happen during a flight, whether it's requesting an approach other than the one in use, negotiating shortcuts or practice approaches, asking for weather at other fields, or receiving interesting vectors behind other live traffic, ATC is fundamentally dynamic. This is my beef with synthetic systems, they miss this nuances...and ultimately, once you get passed the basics of IFR clearances, taxi, takeoff and landing, what's left is the interesting, dynamic stuff. $20MM Level D full motion flight simulators are often equipped with synthetic ATC systems. At most places, they simply turn off the ATC and have the instructor pilot pretend to be ATC (badly). There really aren't any synthetic systems out there, afaik, where pilots walk out of a sim saying, "boy, that ATC was amazing, just like the real thing." They sound like what they are...a computer attempting to impersonate a person. Great for stock standard exchanges, but they fall short when the going gets tough.

kama2004, thanks for the kind words. PilotEdge traffic for Dec and Jan was up 40% compared to the average for the rest of 2014. The traffic is considerably heavier than it used to be. That said, since we cover 40 towered airports, the chances of having multiple aircraft in the pattern are small unless you've arranged something in the Fly WIth Me forum. Another exception would be SNA, which almost always has aircraft inbound or outbound there because of the various training programs. I'm happy to say that we are looking closely at our first network expansion for later this year. The planning and funding are in the works as we speak. I think 737, 757 and CRJ pilots are going to be very happy with the result.

The live workshops at PilotEdge haven't been scheduled for a while. The recordings of the previous workshops have been posted, though.

Gregg, regarding PE, have you visited every airport and flown every approach in ZLA? If so, you would be the first person I've met who's done that To keep things fresh, I've added FSEconomy into the mix with PilotEdge as well as starting to tinker with helicopters. Between those things, I've found plenty of life even out of areas that I've flown into hundreds of times.

I realize this is old, but you can use native multiplayer over the internet, too, you just have to make sure you can make a direct P2P connection between the two boxes. This usually involves port forwarding and firewall holes which is typically beyond the level of comfort for most people. You can spend a few hours trying to get that working, or, as others have suggested, you're probably better off with a client/server multiplayer model using the networks that have been suggested. Another suggestion would be to check out SmartCoPilot, a shared cockpit plugin for X-Plane. If you want to fly with a buddy, this is by far the most enjoyable way to do it. It allows you to fly a single airplane together. Here are some links to some videos of shared cockpit flights: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pilotedge+shared+cockpit

PilotEdge now has native support for P3D in the installer.

Might want to consider X-Plane, I find I can trim it just fine for hands off flight. As to whether it gets easier flying in the clouds, it absolutely does. I never really experienced the wild disorientation that you experienced, but by the time I flew in my first cloud in a GA airplane, I'd had been simming for 30 years prior and had built up decent scan and confidence in my ability to interpret what the instruments are telling me. The other thing to know is that if the plane was trimmed for hands off flight prior to going into the clouds, then barring any significant turbulence, you won't need to do much else to the plane, other than small pitch changes. The plane doesn't suddenly roll all over the place just because you're in a cloud :) I fly in a wide range of IFR conditions but I don't fly much more than 100 hours per year (most of that would be 6 hour roundtrips that are many weeks apart). Without the sim at home, there's no way I'd have the confidence to fly in the clouds. I'm on the sim once or twice a week at a minimum, doing full end to end flights (not just approaches).

Where is it written that you must have RNAV capability? Here's a shared cockpit flight on PilotEdge with the 737-200. We filed /A for the equipment suffix from SNA to SFO. The route was CHAN1.RZS J501 BSR.BSR2. The VOR transmission distances aren't quite accurate for some of the VOR's, but that can easily be tweaked in the nav.dat file to bring the transmission distance closer to real world levels, especially for the VORs that are used to define the high enroute structure (Jet airways). You hear two voices, plus the ATC. The british sounding guy is the pilot flying, the Canadian guy is the pilot not flying. He's providing me with basic instruction on the systems as it's my first time ever loading up the airplane. Takeoff is at about the 25min mark. Here's the video: It's entirely possible to fly online, and real world without RNAV. Btw, this plane is a must have. It flies very nicely and the avionics keep you engaged throughout the flight. While I do love flying the CRJ-200, the simple fact is that watching the airplane perfectly fly the route loaded into the FMS doesn't leave much to the imagination.

BARET4 arrival into SAN. "Cross 25nm NE of PGY at and maintain 12,000." For the landing west transition (which is the case 99% of the time), you're never going to make it to PGY. That said, it might be in the flight plan and would still be easily accessible. The only other "cross x miles east of [location]" instances that I know of have all occurred with fixes/VORs that are along the cleared route.

Xsquawkbox_VATSIM.xpl used to be the filename of XSquawkbox plugin. Perhaps that's changed now that they have 32 and 64-bit builds. It's probably moved to a 'fat' plugin architecture, in which case, check your Xplane plugins folder for a Xsquawkbox folder, or something along those lines. When you're ready to fly on PE, just move the XSB folder out of the plugins folder. Conversely, when you want to fly on VATSIM instead of PE, move the PE folder out of the plugins folder and put the XSB folder back into play. In short, only one of these plugins can be active at any given time because both of them share the same underlying multiplayer library, and as a result, both attempt to comandeer the Xplane multiplayer system, mainly so they can drive TCAS systems correctly.

Yeah, not too many people I wouldn't hurt to get a ride in that sim Jealous! You aren't kidding about a lot of the avionics being real, too. I was helping him troubleshoot some audio a while back and he was referring actual hardware from Boeing...neat stuff.

That's exactly how PilotEdge works, the controllers are paid to be there. That's why the network offers 15x7 coverage, and is also one of the reasons that we can't cover the entire country. Each facility would cost well over $8000/month to run 15x7 and with 20+ facilities in the US alone, the numbers simply don't work. Nobody is REALLY willing to pay the money that it would cost to cover the entire country, let alone the entire world, nor is there a large enough market to be able to populate the country (let alone the world) with meaningful levels of traffic. Consider that the US routinely has 5000+ IFR flights airborne at any given time, and thousands of VFR aircraft, too...yet there are vast expanses of airspace that are virtually empty. The dream of global 24x7 coverage is exactly that, a dream. The reality is that if you had it, you'd be quite lonely...and poor as a result of helping finance that venture. The solution is a smaller coverage area (it could be bigger than PE's current area, don't get me wrong) to have any hope of decent traffic levels. People need to compromise with the coverage area and accept that global guaranteed coverage isn't going to happen. People get all excited if they see "800 pilots online" on VATSIM, but 800 planes randomly spread all over the world might just as well be zero planes in terms of traffic density for any given area.

Coverage area is documented here: http://www.pilotedge.net/pages/operating-hours-and-service-area SFO was added a few months ago, specifically for jet pilots to be able to stretch their legs a bit more. We might have more expansion coming through a partner company in a few months, but I can't say much about that until it's finalized.

Robert, I appreciate the caution and respect that you are showing, but I feel like people are needlessly fearful of trying online flying (including PilotEdge). The best way to set yourself up for success is to fly an airplane that you know very well in relatively simply airspace on a relatively simple flight. Alternatively, you can follow the roadmap that we've laid out with the training program (again, on either network): V-1: 3 laps of the pattern V-2: flight following between two airports V-3: using published transitions of the LAX Bravo airspace (even easier than a random, controller-assigned transition, because the terms of the transition are known and published ahead of time. Just fly the radial and altitude!) I-1: depart KSNA and fly the ILS 19R with vectors to final (the IFR equivalent of pattern work) I-2: short IFR trip, ending in vectors for ILS 24 at KCRQ I-3: introduction to preferred routes, slightly more complex airways, ILS RWY 8 into BUR I-4: controller chooses where you go, ensuring you're able to look up the pref route I-5: SID/STAR into I-6: full approach ILS 19R at KSNA with SID out of LAX I-7: full non-precision approach at KAVX, introduction to non-towered ops I-8: vectors to final for non-precision approach (LOC RWY 27) at KSAN I-9: SID/STAR from LAS to LAX (this is going to be rewritten, actually) I-10 & I-11: more advanced ratings, don't worry about it yet. The good news is you do NOT have to know it all on Day 1! You can arrive knowing very little. The transcripts (text versions of sample pilot/ATC transcripts) give you a great idea of what to say, and you can practice pattern work offline until you're ready to do it with the extra pressure of working with ATC (don't worry, the more you talk with ATC, the less pressure you'll eventually feel. Ultimately, it will become second nature, with zero, and I mean zero butterflies). The key, though is to have a reasonable attitude about it. If you make a mistake, don't try to hide it. Don't try to bluff. If you don't know what the controller is asking, just say, "I'm sorry, I don't know what that means, can you help me out?" and you'll get a positive response 99% of the time. It's when pilots become defensive and adversarial that it gets ugly and the controllers get frustrated. That, or if there is blatant lack of respect for the process and spirit of the network. If you've done at least SOME of your homework, though (ie, read the transcripts, watch the 5 min intro video, read the reference material...maybe 30 mins prep at most), you should be in great shape. What's great about the program is that it gives you a structured intro to the airspace, gradually introducing more complex exercises. If you simply waltz onto the network and pick a random flight, it may be far more complex than you might think, especially when the cleared route not what you filed. But, if you follow the program, you're going to get what the rating says you'll get (in terms of routing), and it will be very predictable....precisely what you need as a confidence booster to get started. My advice would be to pick a piston airplane, get good at doing patterns with it (patterns that keep you within about 1 mile of the field, and within +/- 200ft of pattern altitude), then study the communication transcripts for that flight to have an idea of what to expect, and then give it a whirl! Any questions at all, feel free to post here, or in a fresh thread (up to you). If you do start a fresh thread, PM me to let me know in case I miss it. In short if you don't bite off WAY more than you can chew, then I firmly believe just about anyone can fly online and have an amazing experience. If you charge into it not willing to research anything at all in advance and pick the most complex flights in the most complex airspace...it'll end in tears, most likely when you turn right on the LOOP6 SID out of LAX because your FMS "made" you turn that way

If you're making reasonable mistakes, the controller should professionally and objectively point out the mistake and move on. If you make a long string of mistakes which point to evidence of you not having done a shred of research to prepare for the flight, then their patience will soon dry up and you'll start hearing it in their voice. There is a standard for flying on PE, and it's slightly below (but not by much) the level of a real world student pilot. If you clip some airspace, bust an altitude, or have trouble tracking an airway, we'll point it out and move on. If you do all 3, and then takeoff or land without a clearance, have no idea what frequency to call, have no idea what to say on the radio, etc...then the wheels start coming off. We have a pilot training program (similar to the ZLA Pilot Cert program, I'm the author of both) which can help a great deal (and has helped hundreds of people, in fact) with learning the ropes. Between that, and the workshops (http://pilotedge.net/workshops), you have all the information you need to have a successful first flight, as well as the First Flight scenario, of course: http://www.pilotedge.net/pages/first-flight Do the research, read the material, watch the videos, then enjoy the flights. Much of knowing what to say is predicated upon an understanding of how the airspace works (who owns what, and when you need to be talking to someone). That first workshop will help, and then the ones that follow give plenty of scenario-based examples of VFR flights, too. The knowledge can be equally useful for VATSIM or PilotEdge and the workshops are available to the public at no charge (along with the time-compressed ATC recordings on the site, http://pilotedge.net/audio).

James, I guess I misinterpreted this comment: It sounds like we're actually saying the same thing, then, that they should be studied and learned, then you can use automation to help fly them.

I wouldn't just "plug it into the FMC and follow it." That's what causes everyone to bust the LAXX and LOOP SIDs out of LAX on a daily basis on all of the online networks. The chart is the reference for the procedure, not the actions of the FMC See this article on common errors on SIDs and STARs for more: http://training.pilotedge.net/object/ZLA-common-pilot-errors.html#loop If you can't get the procedures for the airport at which you're flying, simply let the controller know. However, for countries that publish their procedures online for free, there isn't really a good reason for not being able to fly them. Here's a primer on IFR departure procedures, including SIDs: http://www.pilotedge.net/workshops/ifr-departures-demystified And here's a primer on STARs: http://www.pilotedge.net/workshops/arrivals-mastering-stars I strongly encourage you to work on the fundamentals of interpreting these charts, and then attempting to work out how to use the automation that's available on your aircraft to fly the procedures as published. If you simply load 'em up in the FMC, I guarantee you'll run into issues at some point.

Of all the videos to pick!. That's my friend Tom, making his first ever call for an IFR clearance for our flight out of KHEF. He's using my radio and leaning on my airplane That's me in the blue helping him out. Considering he'd never picked up a clearance, he did a great job. You can credit online flying with that (VATSIM in this case, it was pre PilotEdge)

Of all the things that could be said about the differences between PilotEdge and VATSIM, I'm not sure that I've heard anyone compare the willingness of the controllers to handle newbies as a significant factor. Both networks represent a big leap forward in the realism of the simulation, but they go about it in very different fashion. VATSIM is global, free, and volunteer-based (reference the point someone made about end up on 122.80 on 90% of their flights), which means that you might get ATC anywhere in the world, but not necessarily where you're flying right now. It's hit & miss in terms of coverage and the quality of ATC. If you're flying heavy metal IFR, then you're in the sweet spot for VATSIM and most controllers are well-trained to handle visual and ILS approaches out of the major airports in their areas. Outside of that, you will see more frequent gaps in the expertise and familiarity of the controllers. PilotEdge takes a different approach and is geared primarily to student/instrument/private pilots who are working on their skills and looking to stay sharp. To that end, the coverage area is a lot smaller, but provides guaranteed ATC presence during the published coverage area (currently the Los Angeles ARTCC) and during the coverage hours (currently 8am-11pm PT). The controllers are trained on all areas of operation that would be required to service the requests of the target market, which goes well beyond limited approaches at large airports. This also appeals to a relatively small number of sim enthusiasts for whom guaranteed ATC is a must have, not a nice to have, and they're willing to give up the wide coverage area and pay a small fee for that level of service. The bulk of the revenue in the medium and long term will actually be from commercial operators, not individual users (to provide a bit more clarity as to how the business is likely to thrive). Another significant difference is the radio system. On VATSIM, you tune to the frequencies of the online controllers, period. If there's one controller online, you'll be on that frequency for your entire flight. On PilotEdge, the controller staffing configuration is not directly exposed to the pilot. Instead, you dial the frequency for the facility you wish to contact and the system takes care of the rest. You'll also receive significantly more frequency changes (bringing it closer to a real world experience and level of workload) enroute as a result of this mode of operation. One of the places that becomes significant is during your approach briefing. In the real world, it's standard to set up the tower frequency in standby so it can be easily selected when the handoff is made from the approach controller. We constantly see people who come from other online networks who are not expecting to be handed off to tower and don't have the frequency ready to go. Their workload becomes a little bit higher as a result. The two networks can't really be directly compared. It really comes down to your requirements, at which point the choice becomes a lot simpler (either way). I do believe, though, that whichever network you choose, flying online is simply a lot more interesting than flying offline.

wow....really? Let's see, I listed PE last...I listed every other alternative network I could think of...I said nothing specific about PE. So, I'm not allowed to enter a discussion of synthetic vs live ATC systems? I think there's a LOT to discuss there without making it network specific.

I have to agree, if you're a real world pilot, you know that the interaction between ATC and pilots is dynamic in every sense of the word. Any synthetic program is going to fall far short of the mark when compared against services like VATSIM, IVAO, BVATC or PilotEdge which utilize real people to provide the ATC. I can see how non-pilots might use a synthetic program to learn the ropes, but for someone who actively flies, I'm curious why you make the conscious decision to fly offline, and furthermore, when you do fly offline, why would you want to utilize a pseudo-atc system that operates very differently than the real thing? I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to understand the motivation.

The 777 is quite an airplane, I haven't had a chance to try it yet. I am a big fan of the CRJ-200, though. Here's an end to end flight (with portions of the enroute edited out) from SAN to LAX, flown on PilotEdge on a fairly quiet night on the network. There are some really nice shots of the clouds during the climbout and arrival at LAX: Then we have a BUR - LAS flight. This one is a bit more interesting because there's an unscripted engine failure during the arrival: