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
  #1  
Old March 17th 04, 07:25 AM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance

Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
collision devices including the Monroy ATD-300, TrafficScope VRX, and
Proxalert R5. 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. I have flown with the Monroy
and Trafficscope, and can agree with them that having an altimeter
within the device seems to make a lot of difference. I have been
using the Trafficscope for a while now and can attest to its
abilities.

They made reference to the Garmin Mode-S system of traffic avoidance,
and claimed it is far superior. I would agree that any thing which
gives 3 dimensional views is a plus, however, they fail to mention any
price tags. I looked into installing the garmin 330 with a 430
display update and it would set me back about $17,500. For that price
it better give me really accurate info. One thing that does confuse
me is the service ability. From what I read they can give 3D info
within a certain volume by using the Mode "S" transponder. What I
realized is that if I travel outside this area I will be blind to
other traffic. This may be a correct assumption or possibly not, I
welcome feedback. For now however, my Trafficscope seems to do the
trick very well.
Ads
  #2  
Old March 17th 04, 11:00 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BHelman,

Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
collision devices


Where? Can't find it on their site.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #4  
Old March 17th 04, 03:58 PM
Thierry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A spam for another ...

Aviation consumer never tested a Proxalert R5 because our only
distributor was really bad in providing a unit. Our contact
information are available on our website (www.proxalert.com) since
November 2003 but they found unuseful to contact us directly.

Paul Bertorelli of Aviation Consumer got a R5 and will publish soon a
follow up.

Independant users who tested both the R5 and the rest found the R5 the
best unit available. We even have testimonies from Japanese users.

Regards,

Proxalert

(BHelman) wrote in message . com...
Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
collision devices including the Monroy ATD-300, TrafficScope VRX, and
Proxalert R5. 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. I have flown with the Monroy
and Trafficscope, and can agree with them that having an altimeter
within the device seems to make a lot of difference. I have been
using the Trafficscope for a while now and can attest to its
abilities.

They made reference to the Garmin Mode-S system of traffic avoidance,
and claimed it is far superior. I would agree that any thing which
gives 3 dimensional views is a plus, however, they fail to mention any
price tags. I looked into installing the garmin 330 with a 430
display update and it would set me back about $17,500. For that price
it better give me really accurate info. One thing that does confuse
me is the service ability. From what I read they can give 3D info
within a certain volume by using the Mode "S" transponder. What I
realized is that if I travel outside this area I will be blind to
other traffic. This may be a correct assumption or possibly not, I
welcome feedback. For now however, my Trafficscope seems to do the
trick very well.

  #5  
Old March 19th 04, 09:23 AM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #6  
Old March 20th 04, 11:42 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

  #7  
Old March 20th 04, 11:42 AM
Thomas Borchert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)

  #8  
Old March 20th 04, 05:36 PM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #9  
Old March 20th 04, 05:47 PM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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?

  #10  
Old March 21st 04, 06:18 AM
Loran
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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.
 




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 10:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.