Surecheck TrafficScope Pirep?

[Marco Leon]

I cancelled my previous order for their TPAS 100 after I heard the terrible
reviews from the newsgroups and some aviation publications. Through a Google
search I was only able to find one guy's [really short] review which was
positive.

Anyone care to share what they heard or experienced with the TrafficScope?

Marco



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[BHelman]

I got one at EAA this year and it works great. The altitude
information is the most useful of the two aspects. The range and
altitude always seem to be right on with what ATC tells me, so as far
as accuracy it does what they say it should do. I think I have the
vrx model which is the one with altitude, the other one is called the
vr I think and does not have altitude but costs like half as much too.
I can't imagine not having at least the altitude to know how to avoid
other aircraft, which this thing does quite nicely. I am going to have
it installed next month in my panel when it goes in for an annual.

Happy Flying!





"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message >...
> I cancelled my previous order for their TPAS 100 after I heard the terrible
> reviews from the newsgroups and some aviation publications. Through a Google
> search I was only able to find one guy's [really short] review which was
> positive.
>
> Anyone care to share what they heard or experienced with the TrafficScope?
>
> Marco
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Marco Leon]

Thanks for the pirep. Sound like Surecheck got their act together and built
upon what they learned from the RX series. It looks like the new system will
give virtually the same info as TIS via Garmin's 330--at a bargain price.
Not that the 330 isn't a bargain already...

Now where's my piggybank...

Marco

"BHelman" > wrote in message
om...
> I got one at EAA this year and it works great. The altitude
> information is the most useful of the two aspects. The range and
> altitude always seem to be right on with what ATC tells me, so as far
> as accuracy it does what they say it should do. I think I have the
> vrx model which is the one with altitude, the other one is called the
> vr I think and does not have altitude but costs like half as much too.
> I can't imagine not having at least the altitude to know how to avoid
> other aircraft, which this thing does quite nicely. I am going to have
> it installed next month in my panel when it goes in for an annual.
>
> Happy Flying!
>
>
>
>
>
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
>...
> > I cancelled my previous order for their TPAS 100 after I heard the
terrible
> > reviews from the newsgroups and some aviation publications. Through a
Google
> > search I was only able to find one guy's [really short] review which was
> > positive.
> >
> > Anyone care to share what they heard or experienced with the
TrafficScope?
> >
> > Marco
> >
> >
> >
> > Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > http://www.usenet.com



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Julian Scarfe]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> Thanks for the pirep. Sound like Surecheck got their act together and
built
> upon what they learned from the RX series. It looks like the new system
will
> give virtually the same info as TIS via Garmin's 330--at a bargain price.
> Not that the 330 isn't a bargain already...

It isn't within an order of magnitude of the TIS in its utility. It doesn't
give you azimuthal information.

It looks like Surecheck has used directionality to improve the selectivity
of the unit to distinguish between contacts that are, say, 5000 ft away
vertically and 5000 ft away horizontally. I'm sure that will improve it
over the previous version.

But knowing there is a threat within some range is nothing like being told
*where* to look to find it!

Julian Scarfe

[BHelman]

I looked into the TIS system, but the pricetag and service holes
turned me off. Knowing my luck I would be on a collision course just
as it popped up and said "OUT OF SERVICE AREA" Maybe another 10
years or so will bring better improvements in service and drive the
price down to an affordable amount.





"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message >...
> "Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
> ...
> > Thanks for the pirep. Sound like Surecheck got their act together and
> built
> > upon what they learned from the RX series. It looks like the new system
> will
> > give virtually the same info as TIS via Garmin's 330--at a bargain price.
> > Not that the 330 isn't a bargain already...
>
> It isn't within an order of magnitude of the TIS in its utility. It doesn't
> give you azimuthal information.
>
> It looks like Surecheck has used directionality to improve the selectivity
> of the unit to distinguish between contacts that are, say, 5000 ft away
> vertically and 5000 ft away horizontally. I'm sure that will improve it
> over the previous version.
>
> But knowing there is a threat within some range is nothing like being told
> *where* to look to find it!
>
> Julian Scarfe

[Thomas Borchert]

Marco,

We have the Monroy ATD200 in our Tobago - works great! However, the new
generation Surecheck units (something vr) look interesting.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Julian,

> But knowing there is a threat within some range is nothing like being told
> *where* to look to find it!
>

Have you actually flown with a unit that doesn't give azimuth info (and
neither altitude, except for antenna angle prohibiting extremes)? If yes, I
would be interested in how you arrive at that opinion. If not, you should do
it, since you are in for a very big surprise! Azimuth is nowhere near worth
a factor 10 to 20 in price, in my _experience_.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Marco Leon]

Thanks. The consensus is that the Monroy was better than the Surecheck TPAS.
I wouls be curious to see if the Monroy still holds up to the Traffic Scope.
Be sure to post a review if you ever get a chance to fly with the new
SureCheck box.

Marco

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Marco,
>
> We have the Monroy ATD200 in our Tobago - works great! However, the new
> generation Surecheck units (something vr) look interesting.
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[BHelman]

I don't think you can compare the Monroy to the traffic scope for
function, any more than an ADF can really be compared to GPS. The
Monroy doesn't account for altitude, so when you have a 737 flying
overhead thousands of feet up the Monroy would be screaming bloody
murder. I think they mention altitude on their web, but in talking to
them and using it, they try to rely on somehow the signal being
blocked to give only aircraft within an altitude band. I never saw
this "blockage" take place. But, with the traffic scope you know
exactly how high above or below you they are, and can select through
modes to pin point an altitude band or range. I think the traffic
scope giving you the actual altitude of the other aircraft is the way
to go, since the concept of avoiding someone can be made by altitude
separation, even if you never see the other aircraft. Obviously the
next best thing would be directional azimuth, but the lowest priced
system I have seen on the market is near or at 5 figures.

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message >...
> Thanks. The consensus is that the Monroy was better than the Surecheck TPAS.
> I wouls be curious to see if the Monroy still holds up to the Traffic Scope.
> Be sure to post a review if you ever get a chance to fly with the new
> SureCheck box.
>
> Marco
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Marco,
> >
> > We have the Monroy ATD200 in our Tobago - works great! However, the new
> > generation Surecheck units (something vr) look interesting.
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> The
> Monroy doesn't account for altitude, so when you have a 737 flying
> overhead thousands of feet up the Monroy would be screaming bloody
> murder.
>

Clearly, you haven't flown with the unit. This statement couldn't be
more wrong. The antenna characteristics are such that traffic being
more than 1500 or 2000 feet different in altitude will not be
annunciated. Altitude has NEVER be a problem for us in actual
operation. Whenever you get a warning for traffic close enough to be
visible, when scanning outside in a sensible range, you'll spot that
traffic, on our experience. Thus, I have looked at the vrx with
interest from a gadget freak standpoint, but I don't think the altitude
sensing would be worth that much money to me. I would, however, love to
see the vr in action.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

I did fly with one and had one. The Monroy would give traffic alerts
of almost every airliner flying thousands of feet above me, and others
that passed well below me. It was clear to me very quickly that the
claim of "within 1500 feet" was just not the case. It sounds like you
like that unit, but my opinion is that it was just more of an
annoyance than useful because aircraft well above me or below me (or
even some that never existed at all!) would set it off, where as I
have never had that problem with this traffic scope. I think knowing
the altitude of the other plane is the biggest key. As an example, I
was flying 2 days ago when my traffic scope started showing range
decreasing rapidly and his altitude 200 feet above me, at .6 miles I
STILL did not see him so I just descended 300 feet. about 2 seconds
later the Baron passed above me by 500 feet in exact opposite
direction. With the Monroy I would not have known what to do but
panic. I guess it comes down to personal preference and budget,
because there are still some who do prefer the ADF / VOR as opposed to
upgrading to GPS, in fact I was one for 6 years!!


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> > The
> > Monroy doesn't account for altitude, so when you have a 737 flying
> > overhead thousands of feet up the Monroy would be screaming bloody
> > murder.
> >
>
> Clearly, you haven't flown with the unit. This statement couldn't be
> more wrong. The antenna characteristics are such that traffic being
> more than 1500 or 2000 feet different in altitude will not be
> annunciated. Altitude has NEVER be a problem for us in actual
> operation. Whenever you get a warning for traffic close enough to be
> visible, when scanning outside in a sensible range, you'll spot that
> traffic, on our experience. Thus, I have looked at the vrx with
> interest from a gadget freak standpoint, but I don't think the altitude
> sensing would be worth that much money to me. I would, however, love to
> see the vr in action.

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> The Monroy would give traffic alerts
> of almost every airliner flying thousands of feet above me, and others
> that passed well below me.
>

Hmm. Simply doesn't happen with ours. Do you have the feeling that,
apart from the altitude feature, the general detection is more reliable
with the "new-gen" Surecheck unit? IOW, would you think that even
without the altitude indication, the vr would be a better unit than the
Monroy?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[James M. Knox]

(BHelman) wrote in
om:

> I did fly with one and had one. The Monroy would give traffic alerts
> of almost every airliner flying thousands of feet above me, and others
> that passed well below me. It was clear to me very quickly that the
> claim of "within 1500 feet" was just not the case. It sounds like you
> like that unit, but my opinion is that it was just more of an
> annoyance than useful because aircraft well above me or below me (or
> even some that never existed at all!) would set it off, ...

There is a lot of confusion about the Monroy unit, part of the confusion
frankly sponsored by the Monroy web site and advertising.

What's in it: Not bloody much. Just a simple RF power detector (a
simple receiver with RSSI output). The rest is literally just bells and
whistles - a simple processor to work the lights and voice and make some
fairly clever decisions.

How it works: The data stream itself isn't even available, much less
looked at. The processor just looks at the received power level and
guesses at the range. What it *does do* that is really kind of clever
is look at the LENGTH of the power burst to determine what the
transmission is. Short is a Mode-A/C. Longer is Mode-S. Too short or
too long is noise.

That's it. Nothing else. The "cylinder or protection" that is shown in
advertising is nothing but the limits of the sensitivity of the
receiver, coupled with the simple physics for the radiation pattern of a
monopole antenna. [Which, as you observed, is highly distorted by many
factors.]

Having said all that, I do fly with mine. Yes, some days it is a royal
pain with almost constant false alarms. But where it *is* useful is in
those parts of Texas where you haven't been within 100 nm of another
plane for the last 3 hours. It's real hard to keep as active an outside
scan under those conditions as you think you do. The Monroy is a good
"wake up" backup system.

False alarms: There are many places within short range of my home
airport that will ALWAYS set the Monroy off. Rows of chicken coops seem
to do it. Lots of little microwave telemetry sites on the ground will
do it - the bigger higher power ones don't seem to. Areas of poor radar
coverage will often cause your own transponder to set it off - not sure
why.

And then sometimes it is just a cause best left to Mulder and Scully.
No known cause. [With practice, you *do* seem to get a little better at
noticing certain false alarm "patterns" that help keep you from getting
so concerned about that "traffic" that you just can't see.]

For the money, it is an amusing little device, and just might actually
save someone some day. It is just sad that the FAA has had ADS-B
capability available for almost 20 years and not promoting it any
harder.

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

[CriticalMass]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...

> Clearly, you haven't flown with the unit. This statement couldn't be
> more wrong. The antenna characteristics are such that traffic being
> more than 1500 or 2000 feet different in altitude will not be
> annunciated. Altitude has NEVER be a problem for us in actual
> operation.

It *has* to be affected by the limits imposed by positioning in the
particular aircraft, internal antenna vs external, etc.

My experience varies with yours. I get alerts often from flight level
traffic I never see, and I get some alerts from same altitude traffic so
late it worries me.

[Thierry]

Marco,

Don't have feedback but i noticed they delayed delivery multiple
times.

A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly
same
price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat
aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device
will also integrate an altitude alerter.

Everything is packaged in a small box consuming only 1 watt compared
to 5 watts minimum for the Trafficscope system.

Feel free to contact me should you need more info.

Regards,

Thierry

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message >...
> I cancelled my previous order for their TPAS 100 after I heard the terrible
> reviews from the newsgroups and some aviation publications. Through a Google
> search I was only able to find one guy's [really short] review which was
> positive.
>
> Anyone care to share what they heard or experienced with the TrafficScope?
>
> Marco
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[Thierry]

Hello,

A new higher performance unit will be available from end of
October.(R5)

Price will compare to the TrafficScope VRX unit for functionalities
close
to the Ryan 8800 which sells at 6500 USD.

It will display SIMULTANEOUSLY up to 3 threat aircrafts information
including
SQUWAK (not provided by the trafficscope unit), altitude (absolute MSL
or relative to your altitude) and estimated distance.
Horizontal range is programmable up to 10 Nm and vertical up to
Unlimited.

The unit works airborne or on the ground to monitor traffic around.
It's amazing to actually see a commercial jet above and watch its
squawk, altitude and distance displayed on the unit.

Our unit consumes only 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for the other.

We integrated in the same box an altitude alerter to track your cruise
altitude. FREE

To be completely fair you should know that I own the new company who
developped this system.

Those who are interested could contact me at

Regards,

Terry

ProXalert is a trademark.
TrafficScope is a trademark of Surecheck (c)


ps: Have a look at www.proxalert.com (Prototype site under
construction ...)

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message >...
> Thanks. The consensus is that the Monroy was better than the Surecheck TPAS.
> I wouls be curious to see if the Monroy still holds up to the Traffic Scope.
> Be sure to post a review if you ever get a chance to fly with the new
> SureCheck box.
>
> Marco
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Marco,
> >
> > We have the Monroy ATD200 in our Tobago - works great! However, the new
> > generation Surecheck units (something vr) look interesting.
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

[MikeremlaP]

>The
>Monroy doesn't account for altitude, so when you have a 737 flying
>overhead thousands of feet up the Monroy would be screaming bloody
>murder. I think they mention altitude on their web, but in talking to
>them and using it, they try to rely on somehow the signal being
>blocked to give only aircraft within an altitude band. I never saw
>this "blockage" take place.

Hi All:

The ATD-200, when working properly, should account for altitude. But we had
this problem too.

We've been flying an ATD-200 since just before 9/11. (Good timing, huh.)

For the first two years, we had the same squawk some in this thread are having
- that the unit showed no altitude discrimination. We fly out of a satellite
airport near Phoenix, and on flights that paralleled Phx approach/departure
corridors, the ATD would continually cry "Wolf" to the point of being virtually
useless. (We set it to alarm in the "Near" mode, so it should only squawk if a
target is within a mile or two.) It would constantly squawk air transports
that were clearly five or six thousand feet higher than us. That fosters a bad
psychological habit. You begin to "tune out" the warning, since you know
you'll never spot the traffic.

It wasn't clear what it was squawking until a flight on a dark night over no
man's land, where only air transports dare to fly and you can more easily see
who's around. I talked to Jose' about this, and he said the unit was supposed
to look for the LSB (Least Significant Bit) info in a target's Mode C altitude
info, and only show threats within 2500' of our Mode C report. Clearly, the
unit wasn't doing this.

So I sent the unit to Jose' for bench checking. Turn around was quick (like,
one day), no charge (except for shipping to him) and when it came back, it was
like a whole different unit. It definitely is discriminating in altitude now,
and when the ATD squawks, you'd better be looking, because there is
***definitely*** someone out there within eyeshot.

For those whose units are alerting on every aircraft out there, you might wish
to call Jose' about having the unit revised to the latest mod level. He has a
generous warranty, and you're probably still covered.

Hope this helps,

Mike Palmer <><
Excellence in Ergonomics

[James M. Knox]

(MikeremlaP) wrote in
:

> The ATD-200, when working properly, should account for altitude. But
> we had this problem too....
> So I sent the unit to Jose' for bench checking. Turn around was quick
> ...It definitely is
> discriminating in altitude now, and when the ATD squawks, you'd better
> be looking, because there is ***definitely*** someone out there within
> eyeshot.

There is nothing in the ATD-200 to "account" for altitude. It does not
even have the capability to decode the transponder signal, so it knows
neither your altitude nor that of any other signal it receives.

What was "done" at the shop was to simply turn down the gain, so that it
is no longer as sensitive as it was. Your unit now won't see signals
from as far away, both vertical and horizontal. [Which is why, as you
say, it is less prone to false alarms also.]

Notice sometime that if you turn off Mode-C on your own transponder, it
makes NO DIFFERENCE to the ATD (except in those cases where it is
warning of a reflection of your own signal anyway). It does not know,
or care, about either your altitude or the altitude of any traffic.

Having said all that, please understand that I am NOT recommending
against the unit. It does what it is capable of, fairly well, and at a
moderate price. Yes, it will sometimes warn of things like chicken
coops on the ground, and it will sometimes warn of jets 20K above, and
it will sometimes NOT warn of nearby aircraft until after they have
passed (an external antenna will help with that problem). But it will
also usually warn of the guy you didn't know was there and hence weren't
really looking for.

And as they say, one mid-air collision can ruin your whole day.

jmk

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

[MikeremlaP]

Howdy:

>There is nothing in the ATD-200 to "account" for altitude. It does not
>even have the capability to decode the transponder signal, so it knows
>neither your altitude nor that of any other signal it receives.

I haven't taken ours apart, but I've heard the same from another guy who took
his apart - no detector, correct?

Nevertheless, here's what Jose' wrote me last year -
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Mike

The ATD-200 uses two schemes for altitude discrimination: signal aperture
ratio and Mode C LSB comparison. The signal aperture ratio is the dominant
factor for traffic with no Mode C.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If I understand him correctly (from this and other correspondence) he IS
somehow detecting altitude info and the unit is supposed to ignore hits
above/below 2500' of your altitude.

I noticed after our unit came back from being revised that the SUPR LED often
lights up a lot in the Phoenix area, but no Traffic Alert. I took that to mean
the unit was picking up the Air Transports as it used to, but now "suppressing"
their Traffic Alert since they were out of bounds based on Mode C info.

I can try your test and test my theory by turning off our Mode C and seeing if
suddenly I start getting Traffic Alerts on everyone.

Hope this helps,

Mike Palmer <><
Excellence in Ergonomics

[Thomas Borchert]

MikeremlaP,

> the SUPR LED often
> lights up a lot in the Phoenix area,
>

Hmm. The SUPR light comes on with signals from your own aircraft. Could
it be that your DME has contact to a ground station in the PHX area and
that's the reason for SUPR? DME and XPDR use similar frequencies, and
the DME will trigger the SUPR light.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[James M. Knox]

(MikeremlaP) wrote in
:

> I haven't taken ours apart, but I've heard the same from another guy
> who took his apart - no detector, correct?

No megabit data slicer. It receives the transponder reply, but does not
turn it into a digital datastream.

> The ATD-200 uses two schemes for altitude discrimination: signal
> aperture ratio and Mode C LSB comparison. The signal aperture ratio is
> the dominant factor for traffic with no Mode C.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> If I understand him correctly (from this and other correspondence) he
> IS somehow detecting altitude info and the unit is supposed to ignore
> hits above/below 2500' of your altitude.

The "aperture ratio" thing is actually kind of clever. Basically it
looks at how LONG the signal is to decide if it's real (transponder) or
not. Simple (and obvious, once you think of it). But earlier attempts
didn't do it and the results was so many false alarms that they were
almost unusable.

How this relates to altitude? Hmmm... sounds a bit strange.
"...traffic with no Mode C"? Frankly, I have no idea how that would
relate. No idea at all.

As for the LSB (least significant bit) that also doesn't quite make
sense. First off is the question of whether it even SEES the LSB (I
personally do not think that it does). But even if it did, comparing
the grey code LSB between your xpndr and a received one tells you
nothing (other than your altitudes are not exactly equal). You two
could be 100 feet off, right on a transition level for the bit, and the
bits would be different. Or (I need to look, but I think the most
significant digits are last) you could be 10,000' apart and have the
same LSB.

> I noticed after our unit came back from being revised that the SUPR
> LED often lights up a lot in the Phoenix area, but no Traffic Alert.
> I took that to mean the unit was picking up the Air Transports as it
> used to, but now "suppressing" their Traffic Alert since they were out
> of bounds based on Mode C info.

I've never seen the SUPR LED come on by itself. Curious. I *have* seen
it go on and off semi-randomly while tracking what is obviously the same
signal.

> I can try your test and test my theory by turning off our Mode C and
> seeing if suddenly I start getting Traffic Alerts on everyone.

Let me know. I have NEVER seen ANY difference in terms of traffic
alerts regardless of whether my transponder is on or off.
- - -

In one sense the unit performs however well it performs, regardless of
how. Frankly, I have been surprised by the reluctance of the mfr. to
answer this one simple issue. [We are *not* asking for a big trade
secret here. <G>]

A while back a similar thread came up on another list. I sent Monroy an
e:mail, which was never answered. I later sent another, I felt nicely
worded, but asking if they actually decoded the address. I got a reply
that the unit "formed a cone of protection around your aircraft..."
Basically what was in the advertising.

So eventually, some weeks later, I called. I really feel that I was
very polite. I explained that I owned one of the units and that found
it useful. But that sometimes I got "hits" that were obviously from
aircraft far outside of the implied range. I also explained that there
was some considerable confusion among the users I know as to whether or
not the unit actually decoded and compared the altitude of the two
transponders. Could he resolve the issue by telling me if the unit
actually DID look at the transmitted altitude.

He hung up on me.

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

[MikeremlaP]

Hi Mr. Borchert:

>Hmm. The SUPR light comes on with signals from your own aircraft. Could
>it be that your DME has contact to a ground station in the PHX area and
>that's the reason for SUPR? DME and XPDR use similar frequencies, and
>the DME will trigger the SUPR light.

After I posted my reply, I realized I should have anticipated this question.

When the ATD came back from the shop, I noticed the SUPR light was on a lot
more than it had been. (In the Phoenix area. When out in "no man's land" it
only comes on in synch (delayed) with our xponder's REPLY). So I turned off
our xponder (and rarely run the DME, but it was off too) and still the SUPR
light would light up in the Phoenix area.

So it seems the SUPR light is responding to other (strong?) targets in the
area.

Mike Palmer <><
Excellence in Ergonomics

[CriticalMass]

"Thierry" > wrote in message
om...

> A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly
> same
> price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat
> aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device
> will also integrate an altitude alerter.

Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code
my traffic is squawking? It's never mentioned except on initial contract
with ATC.

[Thomas Borchert]

CriticalMass,

> Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code
> my traffic is squawking?
>

I'm interested in the group's opinion on this. Also, would you care to look
at the display tracking three targets? When three other aircraft are out
there, I'd want to be looking outside for them. Oh wait, my RIO can do the
tracking ;-)

Seriously, though: What do you guys think of these features?

--
Thomas

[Thierry]

"CriticalMass" > wrote in message >...
> "Thierry" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> > A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly
> > same
> > price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat
> > aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device
> > will also integrate an altitude alerter.
>
> Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code
> my traffic is squawking? It's never mentioned except on initial contract
> with ATC.

Hello,

First of all if a traffic is following you, could identify it by its
squawk number. If you don't have the SQ displayed you may think this
is a new traffic crossing your path. If you have it you could also ask
your ATC more info about a specific SQ. This will greatly help the ATC
to answer precisely.

You could also check if it's a VFR or not (1200, etc).

Displaying three threats simultaneoulsy will help you take the proper
flight level in order to avoid them all. ie : One threat "A" 200 ft
below, one 200 ft above "B". To avoid "A" You climb 200 ft and risk a
collision with "B".

Our device also distinghish threats squawking mode A only (no altitude
reported). Check if the other do the same.

Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db
which allow
us to offer a maximum range of 10 Nm instead of 5 Nm.

This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of
our radar receiver.

Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for
the TS. This is a large difference. Imagine this small box on your
dashboard during a sunny day. Internal temperature will quickly exceed
the functional limit.
This will also impact the reliability of the device. Electronic
devices don't heat.

Last but not least you get an altitude alerter for free + free
lifetime software upgrade thru our web site.

I recommend you double check the exact level of performance of the
competitive device(s). I was reported a number of inaccuracy
concerning their previous generation device.

Finally you get all these functionalities for nearly the same price.

Rgds,

Proxalert

[MikeremlaP]

Hi Mr. Knox:

>As for the LSB (least significant bit) that also doesn't quite make
>sense. First off is the question of whether it even SEES the LSB (I
>personally do not think that it does). But even if it did, comparing
>the grey code LSB between your xpndr and a received one tells you
>nothing (other than your altitudes are not exactly equal). You two
>could be 100 feet off, right on a transition level for the bit, and the
>bits would be different. Or (I need to look, but I think the most
>significant digits are last) you could be 10,000' apart and have the
>same LSB.

I thought about this too (briefly) when Jose' first mentioned it. Assuming he
means the LSB in the usual sense, I didn't see how you could garner much info
from one bit in a Gray Code. (Gets philosophical with a Gray Code - I suppose
one could argue that, by definition, any one bit change in a Gray Code is an
"LSB.")

When I (briefly) started looking into this two years ago, I visited the
Airsport (?) web site (the guy who sells (sold?) the Altitude Nag?). He had
some White Papers on xponder stuff. Seems it's not quite so easy to decode
Mode C info?

From http://www.airsport-corp.com/modec.htm

[Each altitude code has an equivalent squawk code. The list of altitude codes
shows how that same data would decode as a squawk rather than altitude. But
each squawk code does not necessarily have an equivalent altitude. There are
4096 squawk codes but only 1280 altitude codes, one for each 100 foot increment
from -1200 to 126,700 ft.]

>I've never seen the SUPR LED come on by itself. Curious. I *have* seen
>it go on and off semi-randomly while tracking what is obviously the same
>signal.

Flew to and from Phx Corona Phx, turning off our xponder or Mode C during parts
of the flight. SUPR LED still would come on with xponder off (and DME off).
Unless Customs has installed a new xponder for us or there's something in the
plane creating occasional noise that the ATD picks up (I didn't power down
anything else), I assume this is caused by outside aircraft. (Is he rejecting
TCAS interrogations?)
>
>> I can try your test and test my theory by turning off our Mode C and
>> seeing if suddenly I start getting Traffic Alerts on everyone.
>
>Let me know. I have NEVER seen ANY difference in terms of traffic
>alerts regardless of whether my transponder is on or off.

I ran Mode A only during various traffic alerts and when the SUPR LED came on
by itself. I concur - I cannot tell any difference in ATD operation when I'm
running Mode C vs. running Mode A. (Or xpnder off for that matter.)

So the plot thickens.

Hope this helps,

Mike Palmer <><
Excellence in Ergonomics

[James M. Knox]

(MikeremlaP) wrote in
:

> Flew to and from Phx Corona Phx, turning off our xponder or Mode C
> during parts of the flight. SUPR LED still would come on with xponder
> off (and DME off). Unless Customs has installed a new xponder for us
> or there's something in the plane creating occasional noise that the
> ATD picks up (I didn't power down anything else), I assume this is
> caused by outside aircraft. (Is he rejecting TCAS interrogations?)

Check for that free xpndr from the DEA. <G>

TCAS interrogations are not "rejected" - they aren't seen. Same as the FAA
ground interrogations... different frequency.

Basically the SUPRA light just comes on if it receives a reply that is
above a certain very high power level (it then assumes it MUST be from your
aircraft). A more common problem is for it to *miss* it (i.e. doesn't
quite trigger the SUPRA sometimes) and it thinks that your own response is
rather an aircraft VERY CLOSE BY. Lights all the range lights and starts
shouting at you.

Flying formation with anyone??? <G>

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

[BHelman]

To be up front I got a trafficscope and have been very pleased with
its performance. But your post made some points I felt I wanted to ask
or address.

"Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db:
This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of
our radar receiver."

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't dynamic ability indicate range
of reception, not "quality" of the receiver? example 5NM or 10 NM? I
have been a HAM operator for over 6 years and my experience is that
S/N ratio is an indicator of "quality" not reception dynamics right?


"Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for
the TS."

I run my trafficscope off of the adapter which uses aircraft power, so
why should power consumption be of concern? even 20 watts is minimal
power draw on a 14 volt system. Does your unit have a battery
compartment or do you have to lug around a battery pack (like some
headsets) because frankly battery packs are more clutter.

As far as squawk goes most of the aircraft (I would say 90%) that I
fly around are on 1200 "VFR" so adding this would not be much of an
improvement to advisory conditions.

I saw the website, and it shows an altitude of "65" do you have a way
of showing how that is relative to my altitude? trafficscope gives me
"UP 500 feet" which instantly shows me how far up or below to look, so
by giving their actual altitude, wouldn't that leave the mathematics
up to the pilot to perform?

My last question is what is your company background in producing these
types of devices? Is this the first product they will produce? Has it
been Beta tested?





(Thierry) wrote in message >...
> "CriticalMass" > wrote in message >...
> > "Thierry" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > > A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly
> > > same
> > > price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat
> > > aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device
> > > will also integrate an altitude alerter.
> >
> > Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code
> > my traffic is squawking? It's never mentioned except on initial contract
> > with ATC.
>
> Hello,
>
> First of all if a traffic is following you, could identify it by its
> squawk number. If you don't have the SQ displayed you may think this
> is a new traffic crossing your path. If you have it you could also ask
> your ATC more info about a specific SQ. This will greatly help the ATC
> to answer precisely.
>
> You could also check if it's a VFR or not (1200, etc).
>
> Displaying three threats simultaneoulsy will help you take the proper
> flight level in order to avoid them all. ie : One threat "A" 200 ft
> below, one 200 ft above "B". To avoid "A" You climb 200 ft and risk a
> collision with "B".
>
> Our device also distinghish threats squawking mode A only (no altitude
> reported). Check if the other do the same.
>
> Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db
> which allow
> us to offer a maximum range of 10 Nm instead of 5 Nm.
>
> This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of
> our radar receiver.
>
> Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for
> the TS. This is a large difference. Imagine this small box on your
> dashboard during a sunny day. Internal temperature will quickly exceed
> the functional limit.
> This will also impact the reliability of the device. Electronic
> devices don't heat.
>
> Last but not least you get an altitude alerter for free + free
> lifetime software upgrade thru our web site.
>
> I recommend you double check the exact level of performance of the
> competitive device(s). I was reported a number of inaccuracy
> concerning their previous generation device.
>
> Finally you get all these functionalities for nearly the same price.
>
> Rgds,
>
> Proxalert

[Thierry]

Dear Sir,


Dynamic :

Dynamic gives a good idea of signal to noise ratio so ability to 1)
receive far transmitter or/and 2) have a better signal quality. By the
way i'm an HAM for 10 years too. :)

Power consumption :
False : Drawing 1 or 15 watts is very different. Simply because at 15
watts the electronic will get very very hot and minimize life of the
electronic components. Both TS and Proxalert have a small package.

Battery : I don't understand your concern since your previously said
that you operate the unit from the aircraft power !!! Anyway at 15
watts six NiMh AA battery will provide 18 watts so around one hour of
autonomy.

Our two AA NiMH battery are integrated in the cigar plug cable and
will provide more than 2h30 of autonomy. Furthermore these batteries
will charge automatically so you are ALWAYS sure that they are fully
loaded.

Because our batteries are outside the Proxalert total weight is well
below other devices. Offering a better behavior during turbulences.
Stability is also ensured by our patented fixing pods.

Obviously The Proxalert R5 displays altitude in both absolute or
relative.
Some pilots prefer absolute some other relative. You simply have to
set the proper option thru our intuitive menu.

By menu you can also set the kind of rank you prefer by altitude or by
distance
as our device displays up to three threats simultaneously.

All options are saved and recovered during the next power on.

Concerning squawk i disagree with your statement. As you get
controlled
the ATC will assign a dedicated squawk to your aircraft. Not to add
that you may be in conflict with VFR but also IFR. This is very
frequent when flying cross country. Anyway you get all these
advantages at nearly the TS price.

At Proxalert we only announce products when they are mature so no fear
to have. Our in-house Engineering Department is made up of talented
engineers coming from the very big name in small and large computers
....
Consequently the R5 is designed and manufactured to provide years of
excellent services.

My turn to ask some questions/remarks :

1) If the TS detects transponders answering mode A only ? Proxalert
R5 does it.
2) What is the expected internal temperature when the TS is under a
bright sun ?
By the way you can actually check the Proxalert R5 internal
temperature from
the system menu option.
3) Is the TS fully certified as a rack mountable device ? where to get
the
official form ?
4) Is the TS got FCC Part 15 certificate ?
5) Wake turbulence : It is misleading to say that only big irons are
equipped
with Mode S transponders. More and more light IFR are also
equipped.
To my opinion this may lead to false wake turbulence adding
stress for nothing.

Whatever proximity device you fly i wish you good and safe flights,

Regards,

Proxalert



(BHelman) wrote in message >...
> To be up front I got a trafficscope and have been very pleased with
> its performance. But your post made some points I felt I wanted to ask
> or address.
>
> "Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db:
> This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of
> our radar receiver."
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't dynamic ability indicate range
> of reception, not "quality" of the receiver? example 5NM or 10 NM? I
> have been a HAM operator for over 6 years and my experience is that
> S/N ratio is an indicator of "quality" not reception dynamics right?
>
>
> "Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for
> the TS."
>
> I run my trafficscope off of the adapter which uses aircraft power, so
> why should power consumption be of concern? even 20 watts is minimal
> power draw on a 14 volt system. Does your unit have a battery
> compartment or do you have to lug around a battery pack (like some
> headsets) because frankly battery packs are more clutter.
>
> As far as squawk goes most of the aircraft (I would say 90%) that I
> fly around are on 1200 "VFR" so adding this would not be much of an
> improvement to advisory conditions.
>
> I saw the website, and it shows an altitude of "65" do you have a way
> of showing how that is relative to my altitude? trafficscope gives me
> "UP 500 feet" which instantly shows me how far up or below to look, so
> by giving their actual altitude, wouldn't that leave the mathematics
> up to the pilot to perform?
>
> My last question is what is your company background in producing these
> types of devices? Is this the first product they will produce? Has it
> been Beta tested?
>
>
>
>
>
> (Thierry) wrote in message >...
> > "CriticalMass" > wrote in message >...
> > > "Thierry" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > >
> > > > A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly
> > > > same
> > > > price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat
> > > > aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device
> > > > will also integrate an altitude alerter.
> > >
> > > Intriguing news, but I must be missing something. Why do I care what code
> > > my traffic is squawking? It's never mentioned except on initial contract
> > > with ATC.
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > First of all if a traffic is following you, could identify it by its
> > squawk number. If you don't have the SQ displayed you may think this
> > is a new traffic crossing your path. If you have it you could also ask
> > your ATC more info about a specific SQ. This will greatly help the ATC
> > to answer precisely.
> >
> > You could also check if it's a VFR or not (1200, etc).
> >
> > Displaying three threats simultaneoulsy will help you take the proper
> > flight level in order to avoid them all. ie : One threat "A" 200 ft
> > below, one 200 ft above "B". To avoid "A" You climb 200 ft and risk a
> > collision with "B".
> >
> > Our device also distinghish threats squawking mode A only (no altitude
> > reported). Check if the other do the same.
> >
> > Check also our receiver dynamic : 60 db typical compared to 40 db
> > which allow
> > us to offer a maximum range of 10 Nm instead of 5 Nm.
> >
> > This parameter gives you a good indication of the overall quality of
> > our radar receiver.
> >
> > Our typical power consumption is 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for
> > the TS. This is a large difference. Imagine this small box on your
> > dashboard during a sunny day. Internal temperature will quickly exceed
> > the functional limit.
> > This will also impact the reliability of the device. Electronic
> > devices don't heat.
> >
> > Last but not least you get an altitude alerter for free + free
> > lifetime software upgrade thru our web site.
> >
> > I recommend you double check the exact level of performance of the
> > competitive device(s). I was reported a number of inaccuracy
> > concerning their previous generation device.
> >
> > Finally you get all these functionalities for nearly the same price.
> >
> > Rgds,
> >
> > Proxalert

[MikeremlaP]

>Basically the SUPRA light just comes on if it receives a reply that is
>above a certain very high power level (it then assumes it MUST be from your
>aircraft). A more common problem is for it to *miss* it (i.e. doesn't
>quite trigger the SUPRA sometimes) and it thinks that your own response is
>rather an aircraft VERY CLOSE BY. Lights all the range lights and starts
>shouting at you.

Sitting on the ground the other day (engine off, avionics off, just sitting in
front of hangar watching planes), I noticed that the SUPR LED comes on even
with only one bar on the range gauge lit. Not sure I know what the SURP light
means any more when it's not announcing my xponder reply. Thought it meant
traffic was being rejected outside the 2500' cylinder, but clearly, something
else is going on here.

Mike Palmer <><
Excellence in Ergonomics

[James M. Knox]

(MikeremlaP) wrote in
:
> I know what the SURP light means any more when it's not announcing my
> xponder reply. Thought it meant traffic was being rejected outside
> the 2500' cylinder, but clearly, something else is going on here.

Interesting. Never seen that happen.

I just rechecked the Monroy web site and it's still as short on hard
data as ever. The only thing it says about the SUPR lamp is that it
indicates a signal in the -15 to +20 dbm is being ignored. That's
*your* transponder, or a very close transmitter.

There is NOTHING that I found that indicates that it has anything at all
to do with traffic outside of range. In fact, I don't really see any
way for it to do so, given the relatively low sensitivity of the
receiver.

I've never seen mine do what you describe, but if I had to guess I would
say that it was seeing a close-by transponder (which it was supressing)
and another more distant transponder, receiving the signals from them at
different times. [Note that there is a substantial time delay during
which the range lamps remain on, even with no signal, and that
intervening high power signals do not affect this. Otherwise your own
transponder replies would stop it from detecting other traffic.]

If I am right about what it was doing (and I am just guessing, but it
matches the way the unit works) then the unit was functioning correctly.

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