I'm one of those who thinks that if you want to review technical things, it would help to have a technical background and to grasp the core technical concepts.
I read the review. I've read that some ground stations were wrongly installed, or corners were cut. Now, when things are incorrectly used, do we need a review to know they will under-perform or fail to work?
Reviewing EC equipment without advanced tools to help and relying on just looking at a screen whilst flying isn't the right way. Tools exist, as we know, for safe playback from a PC at home or phone after landing.
Then when taken to task on the quality of the review, the raison d'être is that "This was specifically written from a normal, non technical, GA pilot point of view".
Love the equivalence given to normal and non technical. And that a non technical review on a technical subject is editorially worthwhile...
The problem with CoA aircraft is that installation isn't easy, so they like carry ons, and hence the portable version(s) being popular.
These carry ons tend not to do so well in mostly metal aircraft. That's PAW, SE2, whatever.
The SE2's biggest asset is its weakest point - it's carry on and it needs no install paperwork and is great for shareoplanes. It is a self contained unit with one button. That's absolutely its best points.
However, because it's a carry on and its performance therefore can't be guaranteed, placement is critical and this doesn't seem to get checked, maybe because some of the SE2 posse don't think the tools used to analyse it are trustworthy. It also needs a transponder licence.
I've tested the SE2 against an installed Rosetta. On the first flight results were poor and uneven, despite putting it in the best place intuitively. After checking it on a Vector analysis and moving it, the coverage improved a lot. That's in a rag and tube aircraft...
In the end I'm guessing GA pilots want zone transits, so it will be a Mode S transponder, or in the long term, something ADS-B equipped, if 1090 ADS-B doesn't become cheap enough for all man carrying aircraft to buy beacons and turn them all on....
I didn't buy a PAW for zone transits, and have never expected that it would be feasible to do so. I'm not sure how easy it is to get zone transits offering an SE2 instead of a transponder? I assume if the zone in question only has SSR then it's no use at all if they need a ping and of course, there is only one squawk for an SE2 and it's 7000? I guess you can set others but haven't tried it.
However, for me, the core reason for a Rosetta is totally unchanged by the CAA EC publication. Like hang gliding or paragliding, it's nice to have something outside CAA control.
I want an affordable way to avoid people trying to kill me, and I'd rather high end GA simply went and bought TCAS...
In the end, the CAA will reject any EC over which they do not have total control.
Uses ISM frequency bands? No control, no revenue. Ground station network not controlled by the CAA, data collected not available to CAIT for MORs? Not interested. Technology not ATC centred? Reject.
In the wider world we have facts, opinions and beliefs.
Some people seem to be conflating the first with the second and third, especially when those opinions and beliefs are theirs.
