Regarding a collision avoidance unit, it obviously makes sense to have
a more capable device like the Trafficscope, vs. a cheaper, less
capable like the monroy. Of course it is smaller, since it doesn't
have anywhere near the capabilities that the Trafficscope has,
including the most important, the on board altimeter. They do mention
that 20% of the time you can probably expect problems with the Monroy
altitude, and that is confirmed by postings from pilots who have used
it all accross the web. With all these considered I can see their
"view" obviously by their own final words of..


"If that capability is important to
you or you can't run on ship's
power alone, the SureCheck
TrafficScope is the better choice, in
our view."

I don't think this statement from Aviation Consumer could be any more
obvious or self explanatory.

By the way, the new software upgrade I got for my Trafficscope also
includes now an altitude alert program, intruder altitude trend
(climbing / descending) and will display the 3 closest threats with
altitude, not just one. These are more features the Monroy obviously
can't perform or handle with that type of a display.

As for the altitude issues, I think SureCheck did a nice job of
showing what these problems are, and how the Trafficscope solves the
problem. http://www.surecheck.net/avionics/altimeter.html

Yes I agree, people should read the article entirely, then compare the
two product websites.


Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

people should really read for themselves. Here are some quotes I saw:

You said "inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
regard to the issue."

from AvCon:
"As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
when the host aircraft Mode-C isn?t available, which appears to be the case
about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren?t clear. "

and
" For some reason, this doesn?t seem to be a problem with the signal
received from other aircraft."


The only edge they even mention for the Monroy is price and display,
but not functionality. Performance wise they clearly state the Monroy
did not perform as well, but is cheaper too.

Well, this quote at the end clearly says the opposite:

"We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It?s $400 cheaper than the
SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler, easier-to-read
display. Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that
the SureCheck missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is
strongly influenced by antenna position."

Only then does it go on to say what you quoted:

Their LAST and ENDING consclusion states clearly. And, yes this is
word for word.

"If that capability is important to
you or you can't run on ship's
power alone,