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

[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

[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