"What again was your exact affiliation with Surecheck?"

I like their product, and after meeting with them in person in
California and talking to them on many occasions, they are a class
act. On the other hand my experience with Monroy prior to them was a
concerned question, followed by a frustrated sounding guy named Jose,
who promptly hung up on me when he couldn't answer my question. I
have flown with the Monroy and the Trafficscope and agree with
aviation consumer about the trafficscope being a better performer, but
more expensive. Usually things that perform better, look better, and
have better customer service behind them DO cost more. They are also
getting people who tried the new monroy and exchanged it for their
Trafficscope because the Monroy doesn't perform as well. That is
obviously why they price it lower.

But in reading, you sell the Monroy correct?


What they said about the R5 was

"We'd strongly advise waiting
until this unit is fielded for a
while and has full support
before plunking down any
money for it."


Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

I thought I would share the results as I read them.
Their overall opinion rests with the Trafficscope for functionality,
and places the Proxalert at the bottom.


Ok, I have read the AvCon article now. With all due respect, your
summary is totally untrue.

Their overall opinion is very balanced and they give the Monroy a
slight edge for more accurate detection and way better price. They like
the Trafficscope for the ability to run on batteries and the built-in
altimeter for certain applications. They don't judge the Proxalert at
all, since they didn't have one.

I don't understand why you give such blatantly slanted reports. What
again was your exact affiliation with Surecheck?