Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance

BHelman,

Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
collision devices


Where? Can't find it on their site.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
collision devices


Where? Can't find it on their site.

It is on their site. It is only the head page. If you subscribe you
can get the entire article. I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
having many problems coping with altitude issues. The end says that
the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.
In the end they bacially say that if you want cheap so-so Monroy does
it, but if you want accurate altitude the trafficscope is worth the
extra bucks. My experience has been that the altitude info from the
monroy is worthless, which is why I went with the trafficscope.

They mention Proxalert as "missing in action" and basically say don't
buy it because it is new and has all hype and no feedback yet.

FYI

BHelman,

I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
having many problems coping with altitude issues.

No, that's not true. They explain quite well why they think the Monroy
has the edge. And they explain the potential altitude issue as well -
including all the inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
regard to the issue.

The end says that
the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.


No, the end doesn't say that AT ALL. The end says that the Monroy
performed better at detecting traffic. And while they acknowledged that
the Surecheck has more features, they also questioned how useful all
those features would be. E.g., they liked the simplicity of the Monroy
display better.

Again, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, please don't
misquote AvCon to support it. People here might actually believe you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

How funny, I think you must be reading a different story all together.


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

They said just the opposite. Here is a direct quote from Aviation
Consumer reagarding the altimeter issue.


"The SureCheck's local altimetry
source is a definite plus. If the
Monroy has a problem with your
transponder code, it simply
displays IDENT and doesn't
display any traffic. The SureCheck
switches to its internal altimetry
source and keeps on working"

"Monroy mentions the Mode-A
altitude confusion problem as
well, but the ATD-300 simply
displays the word IDENT on the
display when it sees a questionable
code. The manual explains
that hitting the transponder's
ident button will clear the condition.
Of course, ATC may not find
your spurious ident amusing,
especially if they've just asked
another aircraft to do the same.
And when we attempted to clear
the condition using the ident
button, the fix didn't seem to last
more than a few minutes."


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.

"Recommendations
For the price—$800 to $1200
depending on which unit you
select—the portables strike us as
cheap insurance against a mid-air
collision or near miss.
But you get what you pay for."

So if you want a cheap traffic box that will have altitude errors, ATD
is the way to go for the price, if you want accurate altitude which
more features, trafficscope is the way to go.


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, the SureCheck
TrafficScope is the better choice, in
our view. In any case, we think
SureCheck deserves kudos for
dramatically improving its
product over the previous iteration
and we give the company
high marks for much improved
customer and technical support."

Sometimes you have to read beyond the titles.

And while you are obviously entitled to your opinions, I suggest you
purchase a copy and read it all the way through, not just the front
page headlines.


Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
having many problems coping with altitude issues.

No, that's not true. They explain quite well why they think the Monroy
has the edge. And they explain the potential altitude issue as well -
including all the inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
regard to the issue.

The end says that
the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.


No, the end doesn't say that AT ALL. The end says that the Monroy
performed better at detecting traffic. And while they acknowledged that
the Surecheck has more features, they also questioned how useful all
those features would be. E.g., they liked the simplicity of the Monroy
display better.

Again, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, please don't
misquote AvCon to support it. People here might actually believe you.

(BHelman) wrote in message . com...
How funny, I think you must be reading a different story all together.


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

They said just the opposite. Here is a direct quote from Aviation
Consumer reagarding the altimeter issue.


"The SureCheck's local altimetry
source is a definite plus. If the
Monroy has a problem with your
transponder code, it simply
displays IDENT and doesn't
display any traffic. The SureCheck
switches to its internal altimetry
source and keeps on working"

"Monroy mentions the Mode-A
altitude confusion problem as
well, but the ATD-300 simply
displays the word IDENT on the
display when it sees a questionable
code. The manual explains
that hitting the transponder's
ident button will clear the condition.
Of course, ATC may not find
your spurious ident amusing,
especially if they've just asked
another aircraft to do the same.
And when we attempted to clear
the condition using the ident
button, the fix didn't seem to last
more than a few minutes."


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.

"Recommendations
For the price?$800 to $1200
depending on which unit you
select?the portables strike us as
cheap insurance against a mid-air
collision or near miss.
But you get what you pay for."

So if you want a cheap traffic box that will have altitude errors, ATD
is the way to go for the price, if you want accurate altitude which
more features, trafficscope is the way to go.


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, the SureCheck
TrafficScope is the better choice, in
our view. In any case, we think
SureCheck deserves kudos for
dramatically improving its
product over the previous iteration
and we give the company
high marks for much improved
customer and technical support."

Sometimes you have to read beyond the titles.

And while you are obviously entitled to your opinions, I suggest you
purchase a copy and read it all the way through, not just the front
page headlines.


Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
having many problems coping with altitude issues.

No, that's not true. They explain quite well why they think the Monroy
has the edge. And they explain the potential altitude issue as well -
including all the inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
regard to the issue.

The end says that
the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.


No, the end doesn't say that AT ALL. The end says that the Monroy
performed better at detecting traffic. And while they acknowledged that
the Surecheck has more features, they also questioned how useful all
those features would be. E.g., they liked the simplicity of the Monroy
display better.

Again, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, please don't
misquote AvCon to support it. People here might actually believe you.


I would agree with you that Av-Con says that the traffic-scope has
more accuracy in altitude information for the price. One thing that
did confuse me is when they mentioned that they could not read the
display in direct sunlight. My experience has been that it is most
readable in direct sunlight. Either way, I have had my traffic-scope
for a while now and it has helped me identify 99.9% of aircraft I see
around me.

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,



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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,

BHelman,

it obviously makes sense to have
a more capable device like the Trafficscope, vs. a cheaper, less
capable like the monroy.


To you. Not to Aviation Consumer. In fact, they ask if all those
"capabilities" are really useful in practice.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)