Pilot Edge - anyone using? Thoughts?

nj-pilot

nj-pilot

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
240
Location
Maine
Display Name
Display name:
josh_me
Hello - I try to fly ~4-5 approaches per week in x-plane, and I decided to give PilotEdge a try (appreciate their free 2-week trial period). Is anyone else using it?

The pro's are _amazing_: you get very realistic ATC, including IFR clearances, ground, and tower. I sincerely hope they continue to grow in this way. Great for training and staying current (obviously cannot log time or approaches).

The con's are, well, understandable but make me a little uneasy:
1 - Southern California only (good to train in unfamiliar areas, I suppose, but just adds another thing to my workload)
2 - ATC hours are 8am-11pm pacific time only (I live on east coast, so not ideal)
3 - One ATC person manages many towers and airports, so it's confusing to hear the same voice in so many places (makes me double check my frequencies)
4 - Given #3, ATC person gets too many pilots at peak times - tough to get a word in or receive your clearance
 
Last edited:
nj-pilot said:
Great for training and staying current.
Click to expand...

I would say it's great for training as I used it myself for my instrument training. I did all their ratings up to I9 I think it was... then I did a big loop around their area which consisted of about 10 hours of flying in real time, while talking to ATC. All very helpful... I even did an engine out, declared an emergency and the guy without any hesitation vectored me to another airport. Just looked and I used it a total of 16 hours last spring.

I didn't stay subscribed though because I knew post training I wouldn't use it. I still play the game, and try to do a real time IFR flight once or twice a week... but because I use Real Weather simulated in the game I like to fly around the entire US I rarely fly in the coverage area. That coupled with being strong in ATC communications I would rather focus on other items.

nj-pilot said:
4 - Given #3, ATC person gets too many pilots at peak times - tough to get a word in or receive your clearance
Click to expand...
That's actually both good practice and real life.
 
Last edited:
We have a simulator for our EAA chapter and one of our guys bought a subscription. We've used it a couple of times and hope to integrate into our youth simulator program. They do a nice job, haven't flown it at what would probably be peaks hours.
 
Glad you're enjoying it, OP.

The service covers 40 towered airports and many more non-towered fields. The coverage area is the Los Angeles ARTCC (plus SFO as a single airport). There are enough approaches and enough variety in terrain to keep you busy for quite some time.

The staffing is different than the real world for sure. To have real world staffing levels, we'd need literally hundreds of controllers online at a time, the numbers don't work. So, the compromise is a small number of people (1-3 typically) working all the fields.

As a result, you don't get voice changes as frequently as you would in real life, but once you're aware of that, people tend to not worry about it. The real workload item is setting up the right freqs to begin with, briefing approaches to include having tower on the stdby freq, etc.

The east coast hours translate to 11am-2am, so, you should be in good shape except for the mornings.

If you, or anyone, has any questions about the service, fire away!
 
Bummer. I just got Pro ATC X for fsx a couple of days ago.. I wish I would have given this a try first (I still love ProATCX)
 
synthetic atc doesn't hold a candle to interacting with real people. There is a 2 week trial for PE, no CC needed. Try it and judge for yourself. Most ppl outgrow synthetic atc quickly or dislike it immediately. There is no sense of real interaction or consequence. In most cases, you can't speak to it as you would a real controller so the immersion level remains low.
 
I have flown two IFR flights with PE, and I learned something that I did not know each time. Being able to have these learnings / make mistakes in a simulated environment is far less embarrassing and dangerous than making them in the real world.

I'll continue to fly with them until my flights with them go 100% perfectly.

Like @OkieAviator, I also consider myself strong with radio communications, but "strong" is a relative term. I'm sure I'm weak relative to the professional pilots who do this everyday. I know ~90% of what I need to for ATC communications, but it's that last 10% which I think (for me) only come up in very specific circumstances and will only be learned by making mistakes.

@coma24: It's a great service and system. I hope it continues to grow. I'm happy to send you a private note sometime with some specific feedback (not criticism), in case you're interested.
 
As I've mentioned in other threads, I played with PE for a while a couple of years ago, and was very impressed.
I was already an experienced IR pilot, but despite that I learned a ton.
To make it interesting, I decided to "fly" a 737-800, which increased my workload considerably until I got to learn the ropes, both with the aircraft and ATC. I was using FSX with a Logitech Attack 3 joystick and Saitek rudder pedals, which was very low cost but good enough. I also hooked up FSX via Bluetooth to my Nexus 7 tablet running Garmin Pilot, using my own software for interfacing (but an off the shelf version exists).
For a new IR student or pilot, I can see huge benefits at a minimal cost, so I would highly recommend it, esp. since they give you a free trial period.
For me personally, I learned a lot about flying Mach numbers in the flight levels and RNAV arrivals (STARs), none of which I had exposure to before.

In my opinion, IFR flying is all about learning to plan and think ahead. When you start out as an IR student, you are miles/minutes behind the plane, and as your skills improve you gradually pull ahead. With PE, that process is done at home, with much less noise and stress (not to mention cost), and is realistic enough to transfer to the real world.
 
I think there's a misconception that services like this are "good for learning coms" and not much else. Yes, that is one of the goals, but really, the goal is to bring the workload and thought process closer to flying the real airplane.

Generally speaking, you don't do long XC's without interacting with ATC, and you certainly don't fly IFR without talking with ATC. So, if you plan on simulating end to end flights, not having ATC is a significant part of the workload that's missing.

Now, if you're only practicing a specific task (basic attitude instrument flying or course interception/tracking) then perhaps ATC isn't needed, but if you're doing end to end flights, then it really should be there (through PE, or some other mechanism).

I'm happy to send you a private note sometime with some specific feedback (not criticism), in case you're interested.
Click to expand...

Very interested. Feel free to post here or PM me.
 
I played around with it and it was pretty cool.. The ATC folks were actually really professional. I set my engine to have oil issues after take off and after I lost oil pressure I called the tower back and declared an emergency..

They treated it like real life.. I didn't make the airport and ended up short in a field.. they even said they were sending emergency personal.. I am not sure they get alot of calls like that but it was fun to practice and hear someone respond.
 
We get surprisingly few people declaring emergencies, but they happen.

There was actually an engine failure on a 767 on the network last night (non-event), and a nose gear actuator failure on the guy behind him. The second guy was so preoccupied with monitoring the progress of the first guy that he didn't check if his gear was down.

I may or may not have pushed those failures to their sims from my scope :) It's a capability that we have deployed for the X-Plane client but have limited it to using with commercial customers and limited testing with retail customers who I know fairly well. It was an eye-opener for the second pilot and a good reminder about the power of distraction. I had a fair idea that it was going to go down exactly like that, too.
 
I honestly had never heard of it, but will take a look. I use MS FS for procedure and practicing approaches - does a good job. for sure. I'm not feeling like I miss ATC much, since I file/fly IFR usually, but will still give it a try, I think.
 
I highly recommend Pilotedge. Everyone I encounter I suggest it and introduce it to people.

The ATC controllers do a pretty good job. Especially since they have to control many airports at once.

They don't perfectly simulate Real World operations but they do so as close as they can to the book. So that one class D that doesn't even answer their Clearance delivery in real life, you need to call them up in pilotedge. The controllers are really good at making sure you are on the right frequency which is cool.

All of the frequencies match perfect with Foreflight. and with the right software you can use foreflight just as you would in the real thing.

Occasionally the controllers make a mistake. Depending on the situation, I usually just go with it. If it is pretty bad I'll mention something via forum or email.

One bit I don't like is that they don't make you feel like total crap when you mess up. I busted a descent altitude today by about 1500' and all he did is ask if I was really at that altitude. I kind of wish they would tell me "possible pilot deviation" and ban my account until I wrote an email explaining my mistake. That would probably be really discouraging to some people though. I understand why they don't do that.

The head guy,(I have a hunch he is coma24 ^) is the mastermind behind it. He strives to make the program as good as it can be and takes criticism very well. A few of my complaints I thought he was going to give me a refund and tell me to not come back(thats what I would have done). Instead they looked into the incident and I am pretty sure the issue got solved. There aren't many businesses these days that really listen and admit to mistakes. That is a big + to me.

If you dable with flight simulators at all with any amount of seriousness, not using Pilotedge is just dumb. In my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I highly recommend it. You can be great at flying an approach but still be underskilled as a communicator in the NAS. The latter is equally as important as successfully flying an approach but often does not get the attention it requires in instrument training.
 
saratoga2250 said:
Yes. I highly recommend it. You can be great at flying an approach but still be underskilled as a communicator in the NAS. The latter is equally as important as successfully flying an approach but often does not get the attention it requires in instrument training.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING. Way too much info is placed on shooting approaches in instrument training. It's an issue, because if you have no confidence to file, pick up a clearance, nail the departure and enroute, your ability to fly an approach perfectly becomes moot. I've lost count of the number of people who get their IR and almost instantly become rusty because they don't actually fly in the system.

One bit I don't like is that they don't make you feel like total crap when you mess up.
Click to expand...

Golfpilot, I hear where you're coming from, but you have to remember that it's a training environment and a paid service. We did have a few grumpy controllers in the early days and I can tell you that the number of people who appreciated the realism of having their heads ripped off is pretty low. Customers generally vote with their feet if they're torn apart by the controller. I think that as long as the controllers points out the deviation, then can realize the mistake and learn from it. Now, it isn't always rosy...I was working a King Air that was doing one of the graded flights (the I-3 rating, which is the TEC route from SNA to BUR) and he botched his lateral and vertical navigation then came up with a completely new route when I said, "resume own navigation."

With a long list of mistakes all in a row, he heard about it from me over the radio and failed the rating. So, it's not entirely without consequence. :)
 
To get an idea of what we do on the scope side, including the incident described above, check out: http://www.twitch.tv/ksmith_pe/v/37500658. Forward to the 1hr 7min mark. Around SLI you'll see N19D, who is supposed to join V23 at 6000. Issues ensue.

I don't mean to focus on the negative, but I thought I'd highlight my point above that things to happen and we do correct them when it's warranted.
 
coma24 said:
We get surprisingly few people declaring emergencies, but they happen.

There was actually an engine failure on a 767 on the network last night (non-event), and a nose gear actuator failure on the guy behind him. The second guy was so preoccupied with monitoring the progress of the first guy that he didn't check if his gear was down.
Click to expand...

I heard that as it was happening!! It was my first time in PE and I was working thru my VFR ratings.

I appreciated the controllers' patience with me adjusting to the little nuances of PE. They had every opportunity to harp on the noob but they were very professional. Looking forward to finishing my VFR rating tonight and then move onto my IR stuff so I can do what I came to PE to do.
 
It's on the list but not terribly high up there. The x-plane implementation was simple (ie, less than 5 lines of code in the pilot client). The FSX implementation will be more complex.
 
Last edited:
I'm in the DC FRZ and SFRA; for practical purpose, regardless of flight plan, I've been IFR every flight since 9/11, VFR flight plan or IFR. Personally, ATC comms isn't a training issue for me, nor enroute IFR. I'd be most sevrved by the approach aspects.
 
Am I permitted to fly IFR on PE if I don't have a PE IFR rating? What if I complete I-01 test? If I set personal weather using Active Sky does that have a negative impact?
 
The ratings are optional. You can conduct any flight you like on PE. You can also set your weather to whatever you like. If you do that, then you won't be able to use real world weather briefing tools and you'll need to ignore any weather reads to you.

But, if you want to set IMC when it's real world VMC, that's understandable. By and large, it won't effect things much on the ATC side.
 
Thanks for discussing this.. It sounds very cool and I might sign up if I can improve my sim skills.

Quick question.. I searched the web for a while yesterday and couldn't find a full solution.

Is there a hardware or software ( thinking ipad ) solution to controlling the Garmin gps in the sim ? Hopefully allowing you to turn the com and nav dials instead of using a mouse?

The radio module made by Saitek says it can control com1, com2, transponder etc.. If your Garmin gps is com1 can the Saitek control it ?

Thanks in advance for any help..
 
PFC 430 head unit: https://store.flypfc.com/?/products/avionics/pfc-430w-control-interface/

That lets you drive a 430 or 530 through a head unit. I've used them with FlyThisSim Touch Trainers and they work very well.

You should be able to use the Saitek stack to drive the com1 freq regardless of whether the com1 is a Garmin or KX-155 in the sim.

My home sim is terribly simple. It's a $30 joystick with built-in dual throttle, and $100 rudder pedals. To change the radio, I simply mapped CTRL-UP, DOWN, LEFT and RIGHT to modify the com1 stdby freq. Then, I just hit a button on the joystick to flip flop the stby and prim freq. Works very well, costs nothing.
 
Thank you for the link.. Looks very nice but way over my budget for this..

Follow up and a question.. I just flew my other sim software MS FSX steam edition.

I notice a few things. Adjusting the included King radios was much easier than in xplane because all I had to do was highlight the radio knob either + or - then just spin the mouse wheel and it scrolled the numbers really well. So in fsx that seems better. I also had a much better flight experience in FSX.

Does Pilot Edge support MS FSX ?

Thanks again..





coma24 said:
PFC 430 head unit:
https://store.flypfc.com/?/products/avionics/pfc-430w-control-interface/

That lets you drive a 430 or 530 through a head unit. I've used them with FlyThisSim Touch Trainers and they work very well.

You should be able to use the Saitek stack to drive the com1 freq regardless of whether the com1 is a Garmin or KX-155 in the sim.

My home sim is terribly simple. It's a $30 joystick with built-in dual throttle, and $100 rudder pedals. To change the radio, I simply mapped CTRL-UP, DOWN, LEFT and RIGHT to modify the com1 stdby freq. Then, I just hit a button on the joystick to flip flop the stby and prim freq. Works very well, costs nothing.
Click to expand...
 
MS FSX standalone, yes. Steam edition can take a little bit more work since they don't ship with the same SimConnect version. Generally, it will work as long as run the Simconnect.msi file in the PilotEdge folder once first. That will install a version of simconnect that we can actually use.
 
I agree with @iflyatiger - no reason to spend much on a sim. I used to have a $150 saitek yoke, but later sold it because it took up too much space. Now I have a joystick (only), which I use (along with my mouse) for all operating controls. I bought it used on eBay for $15.

I tend to fly x-plane often using auto-pilot, as I don't really need to become good at flying a simulator - I just need stay current / practice navigating without GPS or ForeFlight and managing radio comm's while IFR - primarily approaches (but also good to brush up on clearances and en route IFR work).

I do not believe that x-plane is a good tool for practicing landings, take-offs, etc.. Though I'm sure others will disagree. :)
 
I personally like having the hardware. Having my Garsim 530 by Emuteq has been such a boon to my real world flying. That said, it's pricey (I waited patiently for one to pop up on eBay).

An alternative one is the Desktop Aviator's module:
http://www.desktopaviator.com/Products/Model_2420/index.htm

They also have one that has a screen for a bit more. Desktop Aviator has the most cost effective panels I think.
 
Desktop Aviator's looks nice and is priced right.. Thanks for suggesting it!

I could be wrong but after a quick look it looks like it does not control the com or nav radios.. ?? Will check it out.



labbadabba said:
I personally like having the hardware. Having my Garsim 530 by Emuteq has been such a boon to my real world flying. That said, it's pricey (I waited patiently for one to pop up on eBay).

An alternative one is the Desktop Aviator's module:
http://www.desktopaviator.com/Products/Model_2420/index.htm

They also have one that has a screen for a bit more. Desktop Aviator has the most cost effective panels I think.
Click to expand...
 
Nope, its basically a GNS500 unit. That said they have a couple Nav/Com options that are very cheap, or the Saitek ones work as well just for your radios. One thing I'll add as well, if you're looking to 1:1 replicate a GNS530 you'll need to go 3rd Party with the software. i.e., RealtyXP. The stock FSX GPS approximates the Garmin and is 90% realistic and it plays nice with the Desktop Aviator product.

They have a rotary encoder panel too that would come in handy for OBS knob twists. Doing that with a mouse is a major PITA. You don't have to go nuts but a couple extra hundred bucks can really make a difference with your sim. The Desktop Aviator products are solid, but not flashy, the only issue with them really is that they aren't plug and play. They have to be mapped via FSUIPC which isn't hard but it's an extra step.
 
Thank you for that confirmation.. Like you said I would need to combine modules but that might work..
 
I went thru a couple of webinars, for those looking for a review, its a painful exercise, in one they took 45 mins to look at 1 simple VOR approach. If you're not a pilot its probably more useful.
 
Tom, the workshops were not a quick review of approaches. They were a detailed, from-scratch introduction. Rated IFR pilots aren't likely to find the webinars useful. The core service might be of more interest (if you have a simulator).
 
I have been wanting to get into PE however I am just slowly getting into x-plane. Honestly I dont know if its my setup, but I have found it to be impossible to adjust to so far. Between the limited focus with the monitor and not finding a good way to map the controls to "look around" and the lack of movement or control feedback I am failing miserably on even the flying part. It probably doesnt help that the config screen just gets me frustrated when I go to fly as the menus dont scale with resolution. I have a 24" high res monitor and i have to get inches away to be able to read the setup screens when trying to adjust the controls to make it usable.
 
If you're using a 3d cockpit, I strongly suggest using the Quick View feature.

1) Pan around the cockpit using q,e,r,f, comma, period, left, right up and down (pan left, pan right, pan up, pan down, back up, move forward, translate left/right/up/down respectively) to find the PERFECT forward looking view. Save is as a quickview with CTRL-<number> where <number> is one of the numbers on your number pad.

2) Do the same for a perfect panel view, a perfect radio stack view, a perfect left wing view, and right wing view (all using a different number, of course).

Now, at any time, you can press the number on the number pad (without the control key) to recall any of those views. That's how I zip around the 3d cockpit with precision and no fuss.

I hear pilots grumble about xplane all the time, but when they fly a well-configured setup, they have very few qualms about how it flies, feels and getting around the panel.

Take 15-20 minutes and go through all the menus, take note of where to change things like keyboard mappings, joystick mappings, joystick axes functions and sensitivity, weather, date & time, aircraft location, etc. Write down how to get to those functions and put them on a cheat sheet so that you're not swimming in options all the time.

X-Plane rocks, but it has a learning curve. Speaking of curves, play with the non-linear response curves for pitch, roll and yaw so that it's not stupidly sensitive about the center.
 
Are there plans to support he Oculus CV1?

So for real pilots looking for realism and keeping current with PE, would you recommend X-plane, FSX, or Prepar3d ?
 
If you are already comfortable with a specific sim, use it. If not, it's a toss up between P3D and X-Plane. P3D has a wider range of supported avionics out there, X-Plane flies better and has a more capable visual engine IMHO.

PilotEdge is an add-on for existing sims, so if there's going to be Oculus support, it's going to be through the sim, not through PE.
 
POA pilot (connected as N265K) picking up his clearance from KPSP to KSEE on PilotEdge, as seen from the scope view: http://www.twitch.tv/ksmith_pe/v/38307759 (link is good for 2 weeks)

Pick it up from 1:39:35, that's where he calls for radio check followed by the clearance. I looked up the departure heading (based on runway and first fix) and initial alt from the SOP just in time to issue the clearance shortly after his call.

Note: the controller was working combined local (clnc, ground and local for all 40 towered airports in the coverage area). As such, the scope is set to a fictitious mode called 'tower mode' which shows callsigns of all aircraft regardless of squawk setting and whether a strip has been created. This allows us to simulate a visual, non-radar tower without an out-the-window view. So, don't be alarmed that the scope is completely full of tags. For a more normal view (DSR mode is what I use when I'm doing combined radar), see the 2 minute mark where I was working Socal combined.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top