New traffic warning device

Loran,

"Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute altitude."

Wouldn't you find this annoying?


I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
wrote:

Loran,

"Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute
altitude."

Wouldn't you find this annoying?


I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.


On several occasions, it appeared that the nose gear of my
airplane blocked the interrogations from the single radar
in view. Turning a few degrees left or right solved the
problem. This is one scenario where two mode c equipped aircraft
could fly close enough to be a collision threat. Whether
this would be considered "likely" is open to debate.

--
Bob Noel

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

(i.e. it's a "fake" interrogation).

and those are great for passive traffic detectors.

Agreed, *if* they do it. TCAS (and the related "Skywatch" and the like)
definitely send out their own interrogation pings (which would, of course,
NOT be picked up by the traffic detector). But the earlier poster implied
that just because the aircraft had Mode-S the traffic detector would see
it. I am not positive, but pretty sure that this is not true. I don't
recall any requirement for autonomous interrogate *or* response in the
Mode-S spec.

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

I have noticed that too. In fact, I have been in situations where ATC
said they only knew my vacinity and pointed out traffic in general
that I had later found where almost near misses. I would tend to
agree with Loran that a traffic detection product like the
Trafficscope with an altimeter would be more beneficial than a unit
like the Monroy which only gets altitude from my own transponder. I
can think of countless times where this would be an advantage.


Bob Noel wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:

Loran,

"Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute
altitude."

Wouldn't you find this annoying?


I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.


On several occasions, it appeared that the nose gear of my
airplane blocked the interrogations from the single radar
in view. Turning a few degrees left or right solved the
problem. This is one scenario where two mode c equipped aircraft
could fly close enough to be a collision threat. Whether
this would be considered "likely" is open to debate.

Here are the links to the three anticol device manufacturers
(affordable) decoding altitude :

Monroy : www.monroyaero.com : Product ATD300 : MSRP 795 USD
Proxalert : www.proxalert.com : Product R5 : MSRP 1295 USD
Surecheck : www.surecheck.net : Product VRX : MSRP 1195 USD

See also what they say at www.avionix.com (Eastern Avionics)

Andrew


wrote in message . com...
I have noticed that too. In fact, I have been in situations where ATC
said they only knew my vacinity and pointed out traffic in general
that I had later found where almost near misses. I would tend to
agree with Loran that a traffic detection product like the
Trafficscope with an altimeter would be more beneficial than a unit
like the Monroy which only gets altitude from my own transponder. I
can think of countless times where this would be an advantage.


Bob Noel wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:

Loran,

"Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute
altitude."

Wouldn't you find this annoying?


I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.


On several occasions, it appeared that the nose gear of my
airplane blocked the interrogations from the single radar
in view. Turning a few degrees left or right solved the
problem. This is one scenario where two mode c equipped aircraft
could fly close enough to be a collision threat. Whether
this would be considered "likely" is open to debate.

I bought a TrafficScope VRX and so far like it alot. One knock is that the
internal altitude readout is often off by about 300', this after getting a
1-minute AWOS altimeter. BUT, the alerts are nearly always dead on in the
vertical plane. Another knock is if you have more than one alert, it'll
rapidly switch back and forth between them. It's designed to do this, it's
not a defect, but it can get confusing sometimes. I don't like how if your
plug comes loose on your cigarette lighter the unit will just turn off, it
wont revert to battery power if the plug is plugged in to the back. Sure,
it lets you know of a possible electrical failure, but you have to boot it
back up which takes a little time and start searching again for traffic -
which seems to always be around where I fly.

The default power on volume is full blast, not fun when put into your audio
panel. The lady's voice gets old, but like I said, it stays pretty busy
where I fly. I get alot of ModeS indications, and wake turbulence warnings.

Like I said, the alerts are pretty accurate, we often see the traffic before
the controller calls it. The display is easily viewable, day or night,
tells you quick what you need so you can get your head back out the window.
I dont find myself staring at it.

Who cares about the codes, I dont. So the Monroy unit has to have your own
transponder responding, and also your mode C replying? As a controller
theres lots of times a transponder occasionally doesnt put out a signal or
ModeC, regardless of position. Interrogation doesnt guarantee reply.

Prior to the VRX, I was leaning towards the Monroy, partially based on
Aviation Consumers report. But they, and Proxalert, at least by their
websites, sure don't seem as professional or informative as Surecheck.

Chris

Thomas Borchert wrote in message
I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.


Have you flown yet with the ATD300? The altitude and range vary
wildly, and I do mean all over the place. It would display 5 miles to
2 miles then 4 miles then 0 miles while the altitude would bounce
between 4 or 5 different levels some as many as 10,000 feet in
difference all within a couple of seconds. I would see this kind of
completely erratic display almost the entire time. For brief period
it would show a voltage readout, then back to a wild display of
traffic. I don't see how any aircraft can go from 0 miles to 4 miles
or 25,000 to 800 in 1.5 seconds. The ATD300 is small in size, but I
have no confidence in what it tells me. The 200 performed way better
performance wise, but that one had no altitude. I think the 300 is a
good voltage meter, but as for traffic, no way.