Thanks - that's only a partial answer though.
Yes - i agree that a chunck of the contacts i see on Rosetta are bearlngless.
The question then is, if i have an FX unit instead - how much of that do I lose. e.g. if 50% of the traffic i currently see if mode c/s and i only get 50% of that via rebroadcst (FX) then i've lost 25% of the traffic i used to see.
i'm not picking fault - i'm just trying to figure out if buy a new rosetta or new rosetta fx
Hi marioair,
I have been absent from the forum for a while, so just catching up with what's been going on in my absence.
That's a difficult question to answer and IMO depends to a great extent on
where you are likely to be flying.
As the person who instigated the development of Bearingless traffic detection on PilotAware way back in 2015, and who was responsible for most of the subsequent testing and development work with Lee, which led to the inclusion of Mode-S detection in the system when the PAW Classic was first released in May 2016, I have a strong interest in supporting its ongoing operation - at least until the need for it can no longer be justified.
That said, I am aware that the percentage of GA traffic having ‘only’ a raw Mode-C or Mode-S transponder (estimated back in 2015 to be around 70/80% of all ‘EC transmitting’ GA aircraft) has reduced considerably in the intervening period - due to the increasing adoption of ADSB out from Mode-S transponders, plus the widespread adoption of PilotAware, FLARM, SkyEcho, Fanet, etc. in significant numbers by the GA community (helped in no small part by the recent EC Rebate subsidy).
In addition, the development and rapid expansion of the ATOM-GRID network, supplemented by the introduction by PilotAware of SkyGRID and more recently iGRID, means that a significant proportion of ‘previously bearingless’ Mode-S traffic is now being uplinked as ‘known position’ aircraft - provided that they are within range of the requisite number of PilotAware/360Radar ground stations to allow their positions to be triangulated, and that you are in range of at least one ATOM station, in contact with one by relay via SkyGRID, or in reliable contact with the ground network via iGRID.
That, however, leaves those aircraft which are only transmitting Mode-C (which for practical purposes
can’t be effectively triangulated), plus those Mode-S who are outside the range of ground station triangulation, which won’t be reported either visually or audibly by FX.
So the main issues for consideration (in respect of the above) when choosing whether to move to FX or stay with PAW Classic/Rosetta come down to whether or not you habitually fly in areas not effectively covered by the ATOM-GRID/360Radar networks (which of course includes the majority of Europe as well as the remoter parts of the UK) - or where there is still a high proportion of ‘Raw Mode-C’ transponders - and to what extent you would benefit from the significant improvements in efficiency (and hopefully reliability) you will obtain by moving to Rosetta FX - with or without an associated FLARM installation.
Sorry, I can’t provide any specific figures, but I hope this helps with your deliberations.
Best Regards
Peter