Rosetta FX

[buzz53]

Mid-December has come and gone! Is there any news on Rosetta FX launch and availability?
Alan

[marioair]

can of worms question....

so the FX doesn't receive ModeC or S directly.
is there any data (either from PaW direct or from third parties) as to what proportion of conflicts you'd miss out on? I know this is a hard question to ask, as it depends on performance (location, obscuration) of the onboard system to detect and the reception of igrid for MLAT.......

[steveu]

I'm flying in the SE of England (Kent/Sussex) and the majority of my audio warnings are bearingless.

However, as the interpolation for distance is just a rough one, you have to decide how much of the warning takes you to a target, and how much is a distraction. I guess I spot about 1 in 2 of the bearingless warnings at best, but then how many are behind me in a 3 axis aircraft with limited rearward visibility, which I would not be able to see anyway?

A small number of bearingless targets pop into MLAT then out again.

In the medium term most mode S transponders will move to ADS-B out or get retired when shared airspace with drones comes in...

[marioair]

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 list 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

[steveu]

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 list 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

It depends on how you have set things up. As I understand it, bearingless targets are not rebroadcast. Any C/S (not MLAT) stuff you get on Rosetta has been directly received. The mode C/S stuff you get rebroadcast is stuff that has been located by MLAT. I'm not a PAW insider and I'm just theorising here. I have also cut down on the number of things I see by configuring the PAW to limit audio alerts just to close by targets.

Bearingless stuff is, however, fed to servers so if enough ATOM stations see them, then can then be located via MLAT.

You also need to decide the quality and usefulness of a bearingless target?

I'm hoping to try a Rosetta FX soon and I'm not worried about the loss of bearingless targets. I'd have them if they were on offer but if not, I'd let them drop.

[marioair]

thats my point....i dont know how much to worry about the loss of bearingless :-)

[PaulSS]

How many coloured rings do you see versus pictures of traffic?

[marioair]

Funnily enough I’m too busy flying the plane to make a note of that!

I wonder if PAW have enough data to do some statistical analysis? Compare a set of flight logs versus the MLAT data available that day?

Right now, my conclusion is that unless having a small form factor or flarm is a critical issue then the FX is grossly overpriced for potentially less feature functionality.

[steveu]

I wonder if PAW have enough data to do some statistical analysis? Compare a set of flight logs versus the MLAT data available that day?

Right now, my conclusion is that unless having a small form factor or flarm is a critical issue then the FX is grossly overpriced for potentially less feature functionality.

Any existing PAW user will have that data already for their own flights stored in their own device in the track logs.

It just needs to be uploaded to PAW playback and viewed.

As for cost, every pilot will have their own use case which will determine value for money.

[marioair]

I find the logs a bit difficult to navigate.
How do I do a “diff” on direct receive versus MLAT for the same target?
I think it would be much more powerful; and statistically reliable if PAW did this analysis with bulk data. I’m hoping it’ll show how  much Igrid and atom has done for the benefit of GA

[steveu]

I think it would be much more powerful; and statistically reliable if PAW did this analysis with bulk data. I’m hoping it’ll show how  much Igrid and atom has done for the benefit of GA

AIUI, because of the huge amount of data, mode-S is not kept for any length of time.

Those of us running ATOM stations know how much it has done for the the community, without ATOM, we would have no FLARM on Classic or Rosetta.

I'm exactly 10km from a gliding club; my ground station and the one at the gliding site are out of line of sight of each other. VRS displays at either club show things the ground station at that club can't see.

You have only to look at a VRS running off any ground station to see the enormous value of them. A VRS in the clubhouse, like at Sandown, will show pilots, PAW owning on or not, that paragliders with FLARM are on the cliffs at Blackgang... that's situational awareness before take off.

A lot has been written, neutrals will be aware of what's going on but some sections of the GA community have closed ears and minds.

Horses to water...

[marioair]

Don’t get me wrong, I think PaW is great and have owned several. But if PAW themselves published the stats it would (a) kill any arguments about MLAT and (b) upsell  people to the FX.

The fact that the sales blurb goes to efforts to state that there is no mode s/c direct receive raises the question. Can we have it answered to kill the detractors.  Even if it was a small net lose - say 10% I’d live with that for the smaller unit, power draw, other features and the fact that in 5-10 years I hope mode s only will dry up

[exfirepro]

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

[marioair]

I’m in the SE of England.

I’ve opted for a regular Rosetta as  can’t see how the price point for the FX makes sense. I see it as twice the price for “just” smaller packaging and lower power consumption but a loss of bearing less and Audio out.

The data driven approach PAW have always had has been great - vector being an example.

Why can’t some stats be analysed to show by region or country the average differences ? Not only would it move everyone to FX But also help on discussions with regulators.