New traffic warning device

[Loran]

I have talked to a handful of pilots who have taken order on the new
cockpit-tcas "trafficscope" made by SureCheck aviation who swear by
it. Has anyone else used it?

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

The concept isn't as new as your post might suggest. There are three
contenders in this:

- Surecheck with the Trafficscope vr (no altitude readout) and vrx
(altitude readout)
- Monroy Aero's ATD-300 (altitude readout)
- Proxalert's R5 (altitude readout)


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thierry]

(Loran) wrote in message >...
> I have talked to a handful of pilots who have taken order on the new
> cockpit-tcas "trafficscope" made by SureCheck aviation who swear by
> it. Has anyone else used it?

Hi,
You can find info on the Proxalert R5 at www.proxalert.com
Only device to simultaneously displays info of up to three threats
including code. Plenty of units already shipped in the US, Canada and
Europe.
Regards,
Terry

[Loran]

Correct me of I am wrong, but don't most aircraft in general aviation
squawk 1200? If 95% of aircraft around me are squawking 1200 how
would this help me?

Loran

(Thierry) wrote in message >...
> (Loran) wrote in message >...
> > I have talked to a handful of pilots who have taken order on the new
> > cockpit-tcas "trafficscope" made by SureCheck aviation who swear by
> > it. Has anyone else used it?
>
> Hi,
> You can find info on the Proxalert R5 at www.proxalert.com
> Only device to simultaneously displays info of up to three threats
> including code. Plenty of units already shipped in the US, Canada and
> Europe.
> Regards,
> Terry

[James M. Knox]

(Loran) wrote in
m:

> Correct me of I am wrong, but don't most aircraft in general aviation
> squawk 1200? If 95% of aircraft around me are squawking 1200 how
> would this help me?

I don't know if the 95% number is correct (I would have thought it
considerably lower), but most of the true threat aircraft will be squawking
1200, if anything.

I do suggest to the proxalert folks that they find someone with English as
a first language to go through and edit their website. It would make their
company seem a lot more professional.

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

[Andrew]

Loran,
Keep in mind that beside VFR you also get IFR.

If you get more than one threat around the competitve guy never stop
his flip-flop between threats. Very disturbing.

Andrew,
R5 user


(Loran) wrote in message >...
> Correct me of I am wrong, but don't most aircraft in general aviation
> squawk 1200? If 95% of aircraft around me are squawking 1200 how
> would this help me?
>
> Loran
>
> (Thierry) wrote in message >...
> > (Loran) wrote in message >...
> > > I have talked to a handful of pilots who have taken order on the new
> > > cockpit-tcas "trafficscope" made by SureCheck aviation who swear by
> > > it. Has anyone else used it?
> >
> > Hi,
> > You can find info on the Proxalert R5 at www.proxalert.com
> > Only device to simultaneously displays info of up to three threats
> > including code. Plenty of units already shipped in the US, Canada and
> > Europe.
> > Regards,
> > Terry

[Loran]

I think that would be the case with the atd300 device since it doesn't
show more than one traffic according to their user manual, but I have
not heard or read that complaint from the trafficscope users. I
skimmed through the trafficscope manual, and it says it allows for up
to 3 threats to be shown as well. The ryan tcad does the same thing
and allows multiple views.

But as far as displaying the code, I think that is useless information
because most aircraft are bound to be VFR, not IFR. Unless you are
flying in bad weather or around a flight training hub, you will
probably see a bunch of 1200 codes. I noticed that the R5 is from
France, so maybe they have not flown around the U.S. much to notice
this.

What matters is portability, accuracy of the altitude, range, and the
overall size in my opinion. So far I think from comparing manuals the
trafficscope has the corner on all of these. One thing that disturbed
me about the R5 is that to use it in my plane I would have to get an
extra adapter for my 28 Volt bus, whereas the trafficscope accepts the
internal batteries or up to 40 volts which is a very nice feature.

I have one on order, and will report more as I fly with it.


(Andrew) wrote in message >...
> Loran,
> Keep in mind that beside VFR you also get IFR.
>
> If you get more than one threat around the competitve guy never stop
> his flip-flop between threats. Very disturbing.
>
> Andrew,
> R5 user
>
>
> (Loran) wrote in message >...
> > Correct me of I am wrong, but don't most aircraft in general aviation
> > squawk 1200? If 95% of aircraft around me are squawking 1200 how
> > would this help me?
> >
> > Loran
> >
> > (Thierry) wrote in message >...
> > > (Loran) wrote in message >...
> > > > I have talked to a handful of pilots who have taken order on the new
> > > > cockpit-tcas "trafficscope" made by SureCheck aviation who swear by
> > > > it. Has anyone else used it?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > You can find info on the Proxalert R5 at www.proxalert.com
> > > Only device to simultaneously displays info of up to three threats
> > > including code. Plenty of units already shipped in the US, Canada and
> > > Europe.
> > > Regards,
> > > Terry

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

> What matters is portability, accuracy of the altitude, range, and the
> overall size in my opinion.
>

Uh, price?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Loran]

Price is a factor, but so are the features. If you look at the ATD
sure it is low priced, but it also doesn't have near the features or
resolution as the other devices. You get what you pay for I think. If
you squawk any one of these codes, the ATD user handbook says it will
get confused and bounce back and forth between the target and "image"
target. http://www.airsport-corp.com/modecascii.txt I think it is
worth a couple hundred bucks extra to get better resolution and
accurate information, if you are going to spend that much anyway.


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Loran,
>
> > What matters is portability, accuracy of the altitude, range, and the
> > overall size in my opinion.
> >
>
> Uh, price?

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

> If you look at the ATD
> sure it is low priced, but it also doesn't have near the features or
> resolution as the other devices.
>

Care to explain?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Loran]

All you have to do is look at their user manuals on any of these
devices to see the ATD300 has hardly any features. I am just reading
through, side by side, the features.

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/proxalert/download/ProXalert%20R5%20-%20Product%20Brief%20(Nov%202003).PDF
http://www.monroyaero.com/ATD300Manual.pdf
http://surecheck.net/five/pdf/VRX_1-0-1_Full.pdf



These are the deficiencies I noticed from comparing the different
models. The ATD does have a bus voltage monitoring, but when you look
at all of the other factors, I think it comes up short.




The ATD does not have an altimeter, which leaves it to listen to any
nearby transponder for a reference altitude. Like I showed before
this could be problematic if you start squawking any of those codes.

The ATD requires you to have an aircraft with a working transponder
and be flying in adequate radar coverage at all times.

The ATD will not show any altitude outside of a 1000' window

The ATD does not take batteries

The ATD has a resolution of 1.0 NM increments only. Saying an aircraft
is less than 1 NM is poor resolution around an airport, where as the
others go from 1.0 down to 0.1 NM

The ATD does not have any volume control for in flight use

The ATD does not have any way to show how many other threats are
around you.

The ATD has no visual indication of alerting you

The ATD does not have any dataport for upgrading or interfacing

The ATD does not have an independent mode selection system for range
or altitude

The ATD audio interface has no mixing or mono-stereo selection

The ATD has no altitude drift alarm

The ATD has no selection of flight status, like ground, or flight

Check them out, they all have manuals online.




Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Loran,
>
> > If you look at the ATD
> > sure it is low priced, but it also doesn't have near the features or
> > resolution as the other devices.
> >
>
> Care to explain?

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

ok, first, in the interest of full disclosure, I am involved in a pilot
shop selling the ATD-300 in Germany.

But I am seriously interested in this. What features exactly are we
talking about? Altitude display? It's there. Multiple targets? It's
there, albeit in alternating display mode. But here's my main point: If
you get an alert, what will you do? Will you keep your head inside the
cockpit and start evaluating all the stuff that some of the display
show, or will you do the smart thing and LOOK OUTSIDE?

So, which feature do you find missing that doesn't just look good on a
spec sheet but that you actually need in practice? Again, I am
seriously interested in your opinion.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Loran]

Here is my question in a scenario basis that I can think of.

Since the ATD relies solely on your transponder for altitude,

If you took off out of an airport and you didn't reach adequate radar
coverage for 1000 feet or more, how is the ATD unit going to know
what altitude you are?

If another aircraft is in the pattern, how could the ATD possibly
tell you how high above it is?

another scenario,

If you where flying in radar coverage at say 5,000 feet, and another
aircraft is say 5,700 feet headed towards you. The ATD would say
you are 5,000 feet correct? but what happens if you fly out of radar
coverage, and climb or descend?

So if you started climbing, 5,100......5,200.....etc the ATD would
still say you are at 5,000 feet since that was the last altitude it
got from your transponder correct? So you could end up at the same
altitude of the other aircraft, while the ATD still says +700

another scenario,

Suppose you are flying with the ATD at 2,000 feet and ATC gives you a
squawk code that equals 1,400 feet. Another aircraft close by is at an
altitude of 2,900 feet The atd will be confused and bounce between
showing traffic +900......-600.......+900.......-600

let me ask you this. If you flying in the pattern of a busy airport,
how often are other aircraft within 1 NM of you?

another scenario,

If two equal threats come into the scene, what will the ATD show? a
flipping back and forth picture? At what rate? Is it not possible
for 2 or more aircraft to be flying around you near any airport? See
the problem here?


They admit these errors on page 9 of their manual, and talk about
going through steps to try and stop this problem. All of which are
instantly avoided by the competitive units having a backup altimeter.


A device telling you to look outside is great, but not if it is
constantly telling you to look outside because someone is flying 1
mile away from you, or gives you false altitude readings because you
don't stay straight and level, in radar coverage, and don't squawk one
of the hundreds of confusing codes.

Let me ask you this, with other units having most likely a higher
profit margin, more ESSENTIAL features, why are you as a business, so
eager to promote and sell a less superior product line and make less
money? That makes no sense to me if I where a business. I would
think you would want to sell your customers the best products for the
most profit. That is how I run my business anyway. There are many
competitive products I can choose from, but I wouldn't pick out the
least favored and less profitable to run frontage on.


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Loran,
>
> ok, first, in the interest of full disclosure, I am involved in a pilot
> shop selling the ATD-300 in Germany.
>
> But I am seriously interested in this. What features exactly are we
> talking about? Altitude display? It's there. Multiple targets? It's
> there, albeit in alternating display mode. But here's my main point: If
> you get an alert, what will you do? Will you keep your head inside the
> cockpit and start evaluating all the stuff that some of the display
> show, or will you do the smart thing and LOOK OUTSIDE?
>
> So, which feature do you find missing that doesn't just look good on a
> spec sheet but that you actually need in practice? Again, I am
> seriously interested in your opinion.

[Ron Natalie]

"Loran" > wrote in message om...

> But as far as displaying the code, I think that is useless information
> because most aircraft are bound to be VFR, not IFR. Unless you are
> flying in bad weather or around a flight training hub, you will
> probably see a bunch of 1200 codes.

Besides, what use is the code even if everybody had a discrete code.

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

> Since the ATD relies solely on your transponder for altitude,
>
> If you took off out of an airport and you didn't reach adequate radar
> coverage for 1000 feet or more, how is the ATD unit going to know
> what altitude you are?

Huh? If my transponder is not interrogated, how will other traffic close by
and at my altitude be interrogated? So, even if my traffic detector knows
my altitude from pressure, it will still not know the target altitude.

That scenario doesn't work for any traffic detector.

>
> If you where flying in radar coverage at say 5,000 feet, and another
> aircraft is say 5,700 feet headed towards you. The ATD would say
> you are 5,000 feet correct? but what happens if you fly out of radar
> coverage, and climb or descend?
>

Same thing: If my transponder is not interrogated, the target transponder
won't be, either.

> So if you started climbing, 5,100......5,200.....etc the ATD would
> still say you are at 5,000 feet since that was the last altitude it
> got from your transponder correct?

No. It would show absolute altitude of the target, if the target transponder
is being interrogated and giving off Mode C info, and mine isn't.


> Suppose you are flying with the ATD at 2,000 feet and ATC gives you a
> squawk code that equals 1,400 feet. Another aircraft close by is at an
> altitude of 2,900 feet The atd will be confused and bounce between
> showing traffic +900......-600.......+900.......-600

Well, time to read the manual again. To quote "In extremely rare cases..."
the above may happen. A solution to the problem is given in the manual.

>
> let me ask you this. If you flying in the pattern of a busy airport,
> how often are other aircraft within 1 NM of you?

Not sure I understand the meaning of the question. But I'll offer one thing
which I have said before: If you are looking at any traffic detector while
in the pattern of a busy airport, please tell me before which airport it will
be so I can stay as far away as possible.

> If two equal threats come into the scene, what will the ATD show? a
> flipping back and forth picture? At what rate? Is it not possible
> for 2 or more aircraft to be flying around you near any airport? See
> the problem here?

No. The ATD will give preference to the closer threat. Makes sense to me.
And by that time, you should be looking outside anyway!

>
> Let me ask you this, with other units having most likely a higher
> profit margin, more ESSENTIAL features, why are you as a business, so
> eager to promote and sell a less superior product line and make less
> money? That makes no sense to me if I where a business. I would
> think you would want to sell your customers the best products for the
> most profit. That is how I run my business anyway. There are many
> competitive products I can choose from, but I wouldn't pick out the
> least favored and less profitable to run frontage on.

Least favored by who? Do you read Aviation Consumer, for example? Their
preference among the previous generation of traffic detectors was pretty
clear. Also, if you assume higher profits (which I don't know anything about),
are you saying you LIKE to be ripped off?

Let me tell you my business model: I try not to rip off my customers on the
vague assumption that "Anything good in aviation has to be expensive".
And yes, that works quite well, thank you.

Have you spent any time actually flying with a traffic detector? I have.
That's how I arrived at my questions and conclusions. And the scenarios you
offer frankly don't convince me at all to spend almost double the money.
But then, I'm probably biased. <g>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH), www.aeroversand.de

[Loran]

"Same thing: If my transponder is not interrogated, the target
transponder
won't be, either."

Nothing could be further from the truth. I would reccomend you talk
to your local center, or approach control and see why because the
explanation is rather lengthy. Also bear in mind the growing amount
of Mode S transponders which transmit regardless of interrogations.

Even so, what altitude would your ATD show if you flew out of radar at
5,000 feet and descended 1,000 feet? Without that interrogation, it
would still be locked at 5,000.

"Well, time to read the manual again. To quote "In extremely rare
cases..."
the above may happen. A solution to the problem is given in the
manual."

I read that, and have learned from MANY years that when a manufacturer
says *extremely rare cases* you can bank on it happening often. I also
went a step further and read
http://www.airsport-corp.com/modecascii.txt which lists the pages and
pages and more pages of squawk codes that WILL confuse it. If you fly
IFR at all, the last thing you want to be doing is trying to fix the
ATD while you are flying through the soup.

A "solution"? Why go through all this? Why wonder if the unit is
getting the right altitude? Just get one of the other two units and
then you'll know for sure, whether you fly in or out of radar.


"Do you read Aviation Consumer, for example? Their preference among
the previous generation of traffic detectors was pretty clear."

Actually I have a subscription, but you know, nowhere is there a
review on the Proxalert, Trafficscope, or ATD300. I do however, see a
review from 2 years ago on previously two of the three manufacturers
older devices of the TPAS and ATD200. Now surely, you are not trying
to imply that a consumer review on completely different models from
years past are applicable to anything these manufacturers, or future
manufacturers develope are you?? If that where the case Garmin must
STILL be living in a "dreamworld where we navigate by satellites" and
glass cockpits are still a "Fad which will soon fade"

Better yet, I would be curious if Aviation Consumer is planning on
reviewing all three of these devices.






Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Loran,
>
> > Since the ATD relies solely on your transponder for altitude,
> >
> > If you took off out of an airport and you didn't reach adequate radar
> > coverage for 1000 feet or more, how is the ATD unit going to know
> > what altitude you are?
>
> Huh? If my transponder is not interrogated, how will other traffic close by
> and at my altitude be interrogated? So, even if my traffic detector knows
> my altitude from pressure, it will still not know the target altitude.
>
> That scenario doesn't work for any traffic detector.
>
> >
> > If you where flying in radar coverage at say 5,000 feet, and another
> > aircraft is say 5,700 feet headed towards you. The ATD would say
> > you are 5,000 feet correct? but what happens if you fly out of radar
> > coverage, and climb or descend?
> >
>
> Same thing: If my transponder is not interrogated, the target transponder
> won't be, either.
>
> > So if you started climbing, 5,100......5,200.....etc the ATD would
> > still say you are at 5,000 feet since that was the last altitude it
> > got from your transponder correct?
>
> No. It would show absolute altitude of the target, if the target transponder
> is being interrogated and giving off Mode C info, and mine isn't.
>
>
> > Suppose you are flying with the ATD at 2,000 feet and ATC gives you a
> > squawk code that equals 1,400 feet. Another aircraft close by is at an
> > altitude of 2,900 feet The atd will be confused and bounce between
> > showing traffic +900......-600.......+900.......-600
>
> Well, time to read the manual again. To quote "In extremely rare cases..."
> the above may happen. A solution to the problem is given in the manual.
>
> >
> > let me ask you this. If you flying in the pattern of a busy airport,
> > how often are other aircraft within 1 NM of you?
>
> Not sure I understand the meaning of the question. But I'll offer one thing
> which I have said before: If you are looking at any traffic detector while
> in the pattern of a busy airport, please tell me before which airport it will
> be so I can stay as far away as possible.
>
> > If two equal threats come into the scene, what will the ATD show? a
> > flipping back and forth picture? At what rate? Is it not possible
> > for 2 or more aircraft to be flying around you near any airport? See
> > the problem here?
>
> No. The ATD will give preference to the closer threat. Makes sense to me.
> And by that time, you should be looking outside anyway!
>
> >
> > Let me ask you this, with other units having most likely a higher
> > profit margin, more ESSENTIAL features, why are you as a business, so
> > eager to promote and sell a less superior product line and make less
> > money? That makes no sense to me if I where a business. I would
> > think you would want to sell your customers the best products for the
> > most profit. That is how I run my business anyway. There are many
> > competitive products I can choose from, but I wouldn't pick out the
> > least favored and less profitable to run frontage on.
>
> Least favored by who? Do you read Aviation Consumer, for example? Their
> preference among the previous generation of traffic detectors was pretty
> clear. Also, if you assume higher profits (which I don't know anything about),
> are you saying you LIKE to be ripped off?
>
> Let me tell you my business model: I try not to rip off my customers on the
> vague assumption that "Anything good in aviation has to be expensive".
> And yes, that works quite well, thank you.
>
> Have you spent any time actually flying with a traffic detector? I have.
> That's how I arrived at my questions and conclusions. And the scenarios you
> offer frankly don't convince me at all to spend almost double the money.
> But then, I'm probably biased. <g>

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,
> "Same thing: If my transponder is not interrogated, the target
> transponder
> won't be, either."
>
> Nothing could be further from the truth. I would reccomend you talk
> to your local center, or approach control and see why because the
> explanation is rather lengthy. Also bear in mind the growing amount
> of Mode S transponders which transmit regardless of interrogations.

Well, I disagree. Also, what about those S-mode transponders? If they
transmit, that's great!

>
> Even so, what altitude would your ATD show if you flew out of radar at
> 5,000 feet and descended 1,000 feet? Without that interrogation, it
> would still be locked at 5,000.

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

> I read that, and have learned from MANY years that when a manufacturer
> says *extremely rare cases* you can bank on it happening often.

Ok, so we go into the "wild guessing based on prejudice" mode. To that, all
I can say is: Go ahead, spend the money and be happy with whatever you buy.

> Actually I have a subscription, but you know, nowhere is there a
> review on the Proxalert, Trafficscope, or ATD300.

And I didn't say that. I referred to the review on the previous generation.

> Better yet, I would be curious if Aviation Consumer is planning on
> reviewing all three of these devices.
>

Yes, they do.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[James M. Knox]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

>> Also bear in mind the growing amount of Mode S transponders
>> which transmit regardless of interrogations.
>
> Well, I disagree. Also, what about those S-mode transponders? If they
> transmit, that's great!

Anyone know for sure? I certainly was not aware of that (and doubt that it
is true). I believe the original poster may be confusing a Mode-S
transponder with a Mode-S transponder which is part of a TCAS-type system.
They do indeed transmit without interrogation, but that transmission is not
on the same frequency (i.e. it's a "fake" interrogation).

There is obviously no reason why one could not be made to "auto-transmit."
The question is, do they? [Now where *is* that spec sheet?]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

James,

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

and those are great for passive traffic detectors.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Loran]

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

Wouldn't you find this annoying?



"And I didn't say that. I referred to the review on the previous generation."

How is it relative to these new devices on the market?



Just curious have you flown with all three units yet?




Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Loran,
> > "Same thing: If my transponder is not interrogated, the target
> > transponder
> > won't be, either."
> >
> > Nothing could be further from the truth. I would reccomend you talk
> > to your local center, or approach control and see why because the
> > explanation is rather lengthy. Also bear in mind the growing amount
> > of Mode S transponders which transmit regardless of interrogations.
>
> Well, I disagree. Also, what about those S-mode transponders? If they
> transmit, that's great!
>
> >
> > Even so, what altitude would your ATD show if you flew out of radar at
> > 5,000 feet and descended 1,000 feet? Without that interrogation, it
> > would still be locked at 5,000.
>
> Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute altitude.
>
> > I read that, and have learned from MANY years that when a manufacturer
> > says *extremely rare cases* you can bank on it happening often.
>
> Ok, so we go into the "wild guessing based on prejudice" mode. To that, all
> I can say is: Go ahead, spend the money and be happy with whatever you buy.
>
> > Actually I have a subscription, but you know, nowhere is there a
> > review on the Proxalert, Trafficscope, or ATD300.
>
> And I didn't say that. I referred to the review on the previous generation.
>
> > Better yet, I would be curious if Aviation Consumer is planning on
> > reviewing all three of these devices.
> >
>
> Yes, they do.

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

> "Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute altitude."
>
> Wouldn't you find this annoying?
>

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> Loran,
>
> > "Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute
> > altitude."
> >
> > Wouldn't you find this annoying?
> >
>
> I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
> where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
> collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.


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

--
Bob Noel

[James M. Knox]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

>> (i.e. it's a "fake" interrogation).
>>
> and those are great for passive traffic detectors.

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

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

[[email protected]]

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


Bob Noel > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > Loran,
> >
> > > "Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute
> > > altitude."
> > >
> > > Wouldn't you find this annoying?
> > >
> >
> > I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
> > where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
> > collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.
>
>
> On several occasions, it appeared that the nose gear of my
> airplane blocked the interrogations from the single radar
> in view. Turning a few degrees left or right solved the
> problem. This is one scenario where two mode c equipped aircraft
> could fly close enough to be a collision threat. Whether
> this would be considered "likely" is open to debate.

[Andrew]

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

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

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

Andrew


wrote in message >...
> I have noticed that too. In fact, I have been in situations where ATC
> said they only knew my vacinity and pointed out traffic in general
> that I had later found where almost near misses. I would tend to
> agree with Loran that a traffic detection product like the
> Trafficscope with an altimeter would be more beneficial than a unit
> like the Monroy which only gets altitude from my own transponder. I
> can think of countless times where this would be an advantage.
>
>
> Bob Noel > wrote in message >...
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Loran,
> > >
> > > > "Again, no. It will revert to displaying the target's absolute
> > > > altitude."
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't you find this annoying?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I hate repeating myself, but I simply cannot imagine a likely scenario
> > > where two Mode C equipped aircraft fly close enough together to be a
> > > collision threat and one is interrogated while the other is not.
> >
> >
> > On several occasions, it appeared that the nose gear of my
> > airplane blocked the interrogations from the single radar
> > in view. Turning a few degrees left or right solved the
> > problem. This is one scenario where two mode c equipped aircraft
> > could fly close enough to be a collision threat. Whether
> > this would be considered "likely" is open to debate.

[SeeAndAvoid]

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

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

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

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

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

Chris

[Nick]

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


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