A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Products
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 21st 04, 09:59 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BHelman,

Yes, as I have posted here many times, we do sell the Monroy.

My experience with both companies differs from yours considerably, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ads
  #12  
Old March 21st 04, 10:43 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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 isnít available, which appears to be the case
about 20 percent of the time for reasons that arenít clear. "

and
" For some reason, this doesnít 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. Itís $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)

  #13  
Old March 21st 04, 10:55 PM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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,

  #14  
Old March 22nd 04, 01:00 PM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)

  #15  
Old March 22nd 04, 03:37 PM
James M. Knox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

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


I realize you are both talking about the newest generation of these
devices. But I just had a really interesting thing happen with the
Monroy ATD-200 yesterday.

I've gotten used to it giving false alarms. With practice, I can
sometimes tell in advance if they are false. And I pretty much know a
lot of the places around my part of Texas that will ALWAYS cause a false
alarm. But yesterday was "new."

I was flying along and one bar (range light) came on, then another. No
visible traffic. I'm at 3000 AGL, however, and that's a typical
altitude for "local" traffic in that area. Another light comes on, and
I look some more. This does not "look" like the typical false alarm
pattern. As an added test, I turn my transponder to STBY. [Every now
and then, not often, it will start seeing my own xpndr if I am in an
area of poor radar coverage.]

The XPNDR light on the ATD keeps blinking, just exactly like it is
seeing local replies!!! Now remember, I still only have three lights
on the ATD, so it's not like another aircraft is resting its landing
gear on my wings. G] It finally faded out, without any aircraft
getting within visible range of mine, and probably none within 15 miles.

Phantom aircraft on the ATD is something I am used to. Phantom
transponders on my own aircraft... that's a new one.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------
  #16  
Old March 22nd 04, 06:06 PM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

James,

The XPNDR light on the ATD keeps blinking, just exactly like it is
seeing local replies!!!


Was your DME on? It will make the light go off, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #17  
Old March 22nd 04, 06:43 PM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No, in Aviation consumer's own words.

They clearly indicate that the main capability of having an on board
altimeter is a major step above the monroy. Which I agree with
completely after having flown with both the Monroy and the
Trafficscope. The monroy had many instances where it either did not
get the correct altitude, or didn't know what altitude to use if any.
Having someone hit IDENT in a busy ATC enviorment is absolutely nuts,
as Aviation Consumer points out as well.

The answer to the altitude issues with the monroy unit is; watch for
the display, mess with the transponder, pester ATC with a spurious
IDENT, and hope it fixes the problem (which it didn't for Aviation
Consumer)

The Trafficscope solution to this problem is; Don't worry about it,
the on board altimeter solves it for you.


But I understand your myopia in your desire to market the monroy. But
what you are trying to portray is that a Cessna 150 is a better
aircraft because it is smaller, and cheaper than a C-421.

"If that capability is important to you......."

A C-150 costs less because it doesn't have the "capabilities" that a
Twin Cessna 421 has.











Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
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.

  #18  
Old March 23rd 04, 12:26 PM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BHelman,

But I understand your myopia in your desire to market the monroy.


You don't seem to understand at all. All I'm trying to aim for here is
a fair representation of the AvCon article. That, in my humble opinion,
was not given by your original post. In fact, the post directly
contradicted the "Monroy has the egde" summary that AvCon gives both in
the article and the lead-in.

Note that I have nowhere in my postings said that I think the Monroy is
better or anything like it. This is solely about the Avcon article.

Let's agree to disagree...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #19  
Old March 23rd 04, 03:25 PM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I do not agree that is for sure. The headlines to these articles are
not even written by the examining editor. Did you know that? The
issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to a
title.

A final conclusion which rest their pick on a product being capable
seems to me to be their last conclusion. The only thing they gave
credit to the monroy for was it being cheap and the display, not
because it performed better. (Which was backwards in the article. In
direct sunlight you can't see the monroy display whatsoever, but the
Trafficscope is the most readable in direct sunlight. I think they
meant dim light.)

Clearly they state that the Trafficscope is a better choice for being
capable of detecting traffic range / altitude more accurately.

I think you should try flying with both. You'll see why the
Trafficscope is better in performance, just as Aviation Consumer did.



Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

But I understand your myopia in your desire to market the monroy.


You don't seem to understand at all. All I'm trying to aim for here is
a fair representation of the AvCon article. That, in my humble opinion,
was not given by your original post. In fact, the post directly
contradicted the "Monroy has the egde" summary that AvCon gives both in
the article and the lead-in.

Note that I have nowhere in my postings said that I think the Monroy is
better or anything like it. This is solely about the Avcon article.

Let's agree to disagree...

  #20  
Old March 23rd 04, 03:49 PM
James M. Knox
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

The XPNDR light on the ATD keeps blinking, just exactly like it is
seeing local replies!!!


Was your DME on? It will make the light go off, too.


Pulled the DME out of the plane years ago. Shouldn't have been any
intentional radiators in the plane (at least, not on). Now was there any
known high-power ground radiators in the area (nothing more than the
occasional phone tower). This is pretty much just open farmland. And it
doesn't normally happen here. [As opposed to plenty of other areas around
central Texas where the ATD will always get a false alarm.]

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.