Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance

[BHelman]

Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
collision devices including the Monroy ATD-300, TrafficScope VRX, and
Proxalert R5. I thought I would share the results as I read them.
Their overall opinion rests with the Trafficscope for functionality,
and places the Proxalert at the bottom. I have flown with the Monroy
and Trafficscope, and can agree with them that having an altimeter
within the device seems to make a lot of difference. I have been
using the Trafficscope for a while now and can attest to its
abilities.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
> collision devices
>

Where? Can't find it on their site.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[James M. Knox]

(BHelman) wrote in news:f3ff9ccc.0403162225.3b6f1695
@posting.google.com:

> From what I read they can give 3D info
> within a certain volume by using the Mode "S" transponder. What I
> realized is that if I travel outside this area I will be blind to
> other traffic. This may be a correct assumption or possibly not,

The "Mode S ability" you are talking about is called TIS. It's really just
a way of uplinking the ATC data to your aircraft via the datalink
capability of your Mode-S transponder. In spite of the fact that Mode-S
was a really dumb way of implementing it (but they needed some way to
justify the cost of Mode S, and this was one more way), it works pretty
well -- when you are within the service volume for a TIS ground site.

In the NE US you will probably find pretty much continuous coverage.
Elsewhere it gets pretty spotty. In Texas where I fly, last time I looked,
there were only three small area in the entire state that even claimed to
have coverage. Basically, it's a Terminal Area thing, never claimed to be
of any use in cruise.

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

[Thierry]

A spam for another ...

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

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

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

Regards,

Proxalert

(BHelman) wrote in message >...
> Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
> collision devices including the Monroy ATD-300, TrafficScope VRX, and
> Proxalert R5. I thought I would share the results as I read them.
> Their overall opinion rests with the Trafficscope for functionality,
> and places the Proxalert at the bottom. I have flown with the Monroy
> and Trafficscope, and can agree with them that having an altimeter
> within the device seems to make a lot of difference. I have been
> using the Trafficscope for a while now and can attest to its
> abilities.
>
> They made reference to the Garmin Mode-S system of traffic avoidance,
> and claimed it is far superior. I would agree that any thing which
> gives 3 dimensional views is a plus, however, they fail to mention any
> price tags. I looked into installing the garmin 330 with a 430
> display update and it would set me back about $17,500. For that price
> it better give me really accurate info. One thing that does confuse
> me is the service ability. From what I read they can give 3D info
> within a certain volume by using the Mode "S" transponder. What I
> realized is that if I travel outside this area I will be blind to
> other traffic. This may be a correct assumption or possibly not, I
> welcome feedback. For now however, my Trafficscope seems to do the
> trick very well.

[BHelman]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> > Aviation Consumer just published their thoughts on these portable
> > collision devices
> >
>
> Where? Can't find it on their site.

It is on their site. It is only the head page. If you subscribe you
can get the entire article. I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
having many problems coping with altitude issues. The end says that
the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.
In the end they bacially say that if you want cheap so-so Monroy does
it, but if you want accurate altitude the trafficscope is worth the
extra bucks. My experience has been that the altitude info from the
monroy is worthless, which is why I went with the trafficscope.

They mention Proxalert as "missing in action" and basically say don't
buy it because it is new and has all hype and no feedback yet.

FYI

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> I thought I would share the results as I read them.
> Their overall opinion rests with the Trafficscope for functionality,
> and places the Proxalert at the bottom.
>

Ok, I have read the AvCon article now. With all due respect, your
summary is totally untrue.

Their overall opinion is very balanced and they give the Monroy a
slight edge for more accurate detection and way better price. They like
the Trafficscope for the ability to run on batteries and the built-in
altimeter for certain applications. They don't judge the Proxalert at
all, since they didn't have one.

I don't understand why you give such blatantly slanted reports. What
again was your exact affiliation with Surecheck?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
> edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
> having many problems coping with altitude issues.

No, that's not true. They explain quite well why they think the Monroy
has the edge. And they explain the potential altitude issue as well -
including all the inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
regard to the issue.

> The end says that
> the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
> on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.
>

No, the end doesn't say that AT ALL. The end says that the Monroy
performed better at detecting traffic. And while they acknowledged that
the Surecheck has more features, they also questioned how useful all
those features would be. E.g., they liked the simplicity of the Monroy
display better.

Again, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, please don't
misquote AvCon to support it. People here might actually believe you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

How funny, I think you must be reading a different story all together.


You said "inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
regard to the issue."

They said just the opposite. Here is a direct quote from Aviation
Consumer reagarding the altimeter issue.


"The SureCheck's local altimetry
source is a definite plus. If the
Monroy has a problem with your
transponder code, it simply
displays IDENT and doesn't
display any traffic. The SureCheck
switches to its internal altimetry
source and keeps on working"

"Monroy mentions the Mode-A
altitude confusion problem as
well, but the ATD-300 simply
displays the word IDENT on the
display when it sees a questionable
code. The manual explains
that hitting the transponder's
ident button will clear the condition.
Of course, ATC may not find
your spurious ident amusing,
especially if they've just asked
another aircraft to do the same.
And when we attempted to clear
the condition using the ident
button, the fix didn't seem to last
more than a few minutes."


The only edge they even mention for the Monroy is price and display,
but not functionality. Performance wise they clearly state the Monroy
did not perform as well, but is cheaper too.

"Recommendations
For the price—$800 to $1200
depending on which unit you
select—the portables strike us as
cheap insurance against a mid-air
collision or near miss.
But you get what you pay for."

So if you want a cheap traffic box that will have altitude errors, ATD
is the way to go for the price, if you want accurate altitude which
more features, trafficscope is the way to go.


Their LAST and ENDING consclusion states clearly. And, yes this is
word for word.

"If that capability is important to
you or you can't run on ship's
power alone, the SureCheck
TrafficScope is the better choice, in
our view. In any case, we think
SureCheck deserves kudos for
dramatically improving its
product over the previous iteration
and we give the company
high marks for much improved
customer and technical support."

Sometimes you have to read beyond the titles.

And while you are obviously entitled to your opinions, I suggest you
purchase a copy and read it all the way through, not just the front
page headlines.


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> > I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
> > edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
> > having many problems coping with altitude issues.
>
> No, that's not true. They explain quite well why they think the Monroy
> has the edge. And they explain the potential altitude issue as well -
> including all the inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
> regard to the issue.
>
> > The end says that
> > the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
> > on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.
> >
>
> No, the end doesn't say that AT ALL. The end says that the Monroy
> performed better at detecting traffic. And while they acknowledged that
> the Surecheck has more features, they also questioned how useful all
> those features would be. E.g., they liked the simplicity of the Monroy
> display better.
>
> Again, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, please don't
> misquote AvCon to support it. People here might actually believe you.

[BHelman]

"What again was your exact affiliation with Surecheck?"

I like their product, and after meeting with them in person in
California and talking to them on many occasions, they are a class
act. On the other hand my experience with Monroy prior to them was a
concerned question, followed by a frustrated sounding guy named Jose,
who promptly hung up on me when he couldn't answer my question. I
have flown with the Monroy and the Trafficscope and agree with
aviation consumer about the trafficscope being a better performer, but
more expensive. Usually things that perform better, look better, and
have better customer service behind them DO cost more. They are also
getting people who tried the new monroy and exchanged it for their
Trafficscope because the Monroy doesn't perform as well. That is
obviously why they price it lower.

But in reading, you sell the Monroy correct?


What they said about the R5 was

"We'd strongly advise waiting
until this unit is fielded for a
while and has full support
before plunking down any
money for it."


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> > I thought I would share the results as I read them.
> > Their overall opinion rests with the Trafficscope for functionality,
> > and places the Proxalert at the bottom.
> >
>
> Ok, I have read the AvCon article now. With all due respect, your
> summary is totally untrue.
>
> Their overall opinion is very balanced and they give the Monroy a
> slight edge for more accurate detection and way better price. They like
> the Trafficscope for the ability to run on batteries and the built-in
> altimeter for certain applications. They don't judge the Proxalert at
> all, since they didn't have one.
>
> I don't understand why you give such blatantly slanted reports. What
> again was your exact affiliation with Surecheck?

[Loran]

(BHelman) wrote in message >...
> How funny, I think you must be reading a different story all together.
>
>
> You said "inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
> regard to the issue."
>
> They said just the opposite. Here is a direct quote from Aviation
> Consumer reagarding the altimeter issue.
>
>
> "The SureCheck's local altimetry
> source is a definite plus. If the
> Monroy has a problem with your
> transponder code, it simply
> displays IDENT and doesn't
> display any traffic. The SureCheck
> switches to its internal altimetry
> source and keeps on working"
>
> "Monroy mentions the Mode-A
> altitude confusion problem as
> well, but the ATD-300 simply
> displays the word IDENT on the
> display when it sees a questionable
> code. The manual explains
> that hitting the transponder's
> ident button will clear the condition.
> Of course, ATC may not find
> your spurious ident amusing,
> especially if they've just asked
> another aircraft to do the same.
> And when we attempted to clear
> the condition using the ident
> button, the fix didn't seem to last
> more than a few minutes."
>
>
> The only edge they even mention for the Monroy is price and display,
> but not functionality. Performance wise they clearly state the Monroy
> did not perform as well, but is cheaper too.
>
> "Recommendations
> For the price?$800 to $1200
> depending on which unit you
> select?the portables strike us as
> cheap insurance against a mid-air
> collision or near miss.
> But you get what you pay for."
>
> So if you want a cheap traffic box that will have altitude errors, ATD
> is the way to go for the price, if you want accurate altitude which
> more features, trafficscope is the way to go.
>
>
> Their LAST and ENDING consclusion states clearly. And, yes this is
> word for word.
>
> "If that capability is important to
> you or you can't run on ship's
> power alone, the SureCheck
> TrafficScope is the better choice, in
> our view. In any case, we think
> SureCheck deserves kudos for
> dramatically improving its
> product over the previous iteration
> and we give the company
> high marks for much improved
> customer and technical support."
>
> Sometimes you have to read beyond the titles.
>
> And while you are obviously entitled to your opinions, I suggest you
> purchase a copy and read it all the way through, not just the front
> page headlines.
>
>
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> > BHelman,
> >
> > > I am not sure why they say Monroy has any
> > > edge in the title, because throughout the review it refers to Monroy
> > > having many problems coping with altitude issues.
> >
> > No, that's not true. They explain quite well why they think the Monroy
> > has the edge. And they explain the potential altitude issue as well -
> > including all the inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
> > regard to the issue.
> >
> > > The end says that
> > > the more reliable unit is the trafficscope which I agree. They touch
> > > on the many features that trafficscope has that the monroy does not.
> > >
> >
> > No, the end doesn't say that AT ALL. The end says that the Monroy
> > performed better at detecting traffic. And while they acknowledged that
> > the Surecheck has more features, they also questioned how useful all
> > those features would be. E.g., they liked the simplicity of the Monroy
> > display better.
> >
> > Again, while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, please don't
> > misquote AvCon to support it. People here might actually believe you.


I would agree with you that Av-Con says that the traffic-scope has
more accuracy in altitude information for the price. One thing that
did confuse me is when they mentioned that they could not read the
display in direct sunlight. My experience has been that it is most
readable in direct sunlight. Either way, I have had my traffic-scope
for a while now and it has helped me identify 99.9% of aircraft I see
around me.

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

Yes, as I have posted here many times, we do sell the Monroy.

My experience with both companies differs from yours considerably, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

people should really read for themselves. Here are some quotes I saw:

> You said "inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
> regard to the issue."

from AvCon:
"As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
when the host aircraft Mode-C isn’t available, which appears to be the case
about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren’t clear. "

and
" For some reason, this doesn’t seem to be a problem with the signal
received from other aircraft."

>
> The only edge they even mention for the Monroy is price and display,
> but not functionality. Performance wise they clearly state the Monroy
> did not perform as well, but is cheaper too.

Well, this quote at the end clearly says the opposite:

"We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It’s $400 cheaper than the
SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler, easier-to-read
display. Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that
the SureCheck missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is
strongly influenced by antenna position."

Only then does it go on to say what you quoted:

> Their LAST and ENDING consclusion states clearly. And, yes this is
> word for word.
>
> "If that capability is important to
> you or you can't run on ship's
> power alone,



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

Regarding a collision avoidance unit, it obviously makes sense to have
a more capable device like the Trafficscope, vs. a cheaper, less
capable like the monroy. Of course it is smaller, since it doesn't
have anywhere near the capabilities that the Trafficscope has,
including the most important, the on board altimeter. They do mention
that 20% of the time you can probably expect problems with the Monroy
altitude, and that is confirmed by postings from pilots who have used
it all accross the web. With all these considered I can see their
"view" obviously by their own final words of..


"If that capability is important to
you or you can't run on ship's
power alone, the SureCheck
TrafficScope is the better choice, in
our view."

I don't think this statement from Aviation Consumer could be any more
obvious or self explanatory.

By the way, the new software upgrade I got for my Trafficscope also
includes now an altitude alert program, intruder altitude trend
(climbing / descending) and will display the 3 closest threats with
altitude, not just one. These are more features the Monroy obviously
can't perform or handle with that type of a display.

As for the altitude issues, I think SureCheck did a nice job of
showing what these problems are, and how the Trafficscope solves the
problem. http://www.surecheck.net/avionics/altimeter.html

Yes I agree, people should read the article entirely, then compare the
two product websites.


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> people should really read for themselves. Here are some quotes I saw:
>
> > You said "inconsistent explanations coming from Surecheck with
> > regard to the issue."
>
> from AvCon:
> "As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude determinations
> when the host aircraft Mode-C isn?t available, which appears to be the case
> about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren?t clear. "
>
> and
> " For some reason, this doesn?t seem to be a problem with the signal
> received from other aircraft."
>
> >
> > The only edge they even mention for the Monroy is price and display,
> > but not functionality. Performance wise they clearly state the Monroy
> > did not perform as well, but is cheaper too.
>
> Well, this quote at the end clearly says the opposite:
>
> "We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It?s $400 cheaper than the
> SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a simpler, easier-to-read
> display. Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that
> the SureCheck missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is
> strongly influenced by antenna position."
>
> Only then does it go on to say what you quoted:
>
> > Their LAST and ENDING consclusion states clearly. And, yes this is
> > word for word.
> >
> > "If that capability is important to
> > you or you can't run on ship's
> > power alone,

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> it obviously makes sense to have
> a more capable device like the Trafficscope, vs. a cheaper, less
> capable like the monroy.
>

To you. Not to Aviation Consumer. In fact, they ask if all those
"capabilities" are really useful in practice.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[James M. Knox]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

>> it obviously makes sense to have
>> a more capable device like the Trafficscope, vs. a cheaper, less
>> capable like the monroy.

I realize you are both talking about the newest generation of these
devices. But I just had a really interesting thing happen with the
Monroy ATD-200 yesterday.

I've gotten used to it giving false alarms. With practice, I can
sometimes tell in advance if they are false. And I pretty much know a
lot of the places around my part of Texas that will ALWAYS cause a false
alarm. But yesterday was "new."

I was flying along and one bar (range light) came on, then another. No
visible traffic. I'm at 3000 AGL, however, and that's a typical
altitude for "local" traffic in that area. Another light comes on, and
I look some more. This does not "look" like the typical false alarm
pattern. As an added test, I turn my transponder to STBY. [Every now
and then, not often, it will start seeing my own xpndr if I am in an
area of poor radar coverage.]

The XPNDR light on the ATD keeps blinking, just exactly like it is
seeing local replies!!! Now remember, I still only have three lights
on the ATD, so it's not like another aircraft is resting its landing
gear on my wings. <G>] It finally faded out, without any aircraft
getting within visible range of mine, and probably none within 15 miles.

Phantom aircraft on the ATD is something I am used to. Phantom
transponders on my own aircraft... that's a new one.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

James,

> The XPNDR light on the ATD keeps blinking, just exactly like it is
> seeing local replies!!!
>

Was your DME on? It will make the light go off, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

No, in Aviation consumer's own words.

They clearly indicate that the main capability of having an on board
altimeter is a major step above the monroy. Which I agree with
completely after having flown with both the Monroy and the
Trafficscope. The monroy had many instances where it either did not
get the correct altitude, or didn't know what altitude to use if any.
Having someone hit IDENT in a busy ATC enviorment is absolutely nuts,
as Aviation Consumer points out as well.

The answer to the altitude issues with the monroy unit is; watch for
the display, mess with the transponder, pester ATC with a spurious
IDENT, and hope it fixes the problem (which it didn't for Aviation
Consumer)

The Trafficscope solution to this problem is; Don't worry about it,
the on board altimeter solves it for you.


But I understand your myopia in your desire to market the monroy. But
what you are trying to portray is that a Cessna 150 is a better
aircraft because it is smaller, and cheaper than a C-421.

"If that capability is important to you......."

A C-150 costs less because it doesn't have the "capabilities" that a
Twin Cessna 421 has.











Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> > it obviously makes sense to have
> > a more capable device like the Trafficscope, vs. a cheaper, less
> > capable like the monroy.
> >
>
> To you. Not to Aviation Consumer. In fact, they ask if all those
> "capabilities" are really useful in practice.

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> But I understand your myopia in your desire to market the monroy.
>

You don't seem to understand at all. All I'm trying to aim for here is
a fair representation of the AvCon article. That, in my humble opinion,
was not given by your original post. In fact, the post directly
contradicted the "Monroy has the egde" summary that AvCon gives both in
the article and the lead-in.

Note that I have nowhere in my postings said that I think the Monroy is
better or anything like it. This is solely about the Avcon article.

Let's agree to disagree...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

I do not agree that is for sure. The headlines to these articles are
not even written by the examining editor. Did you know that? The
issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to a
title.

A final conclusion which rest their pick on a product being capable
seems to me to be their last conclusion. The only thing they gave
credit to the monroy for was it being cheap and the display, not
because it performed better. (Which was backwards in the article. In
direct sunlight you can't see the monroy display whatsoever, but the
Trafficscope is the most readable in direct sunlight. I think they
meant dim light.)

Clearly they state that the Trafficscope is a better choice for being
capable of detecting traffic range / altitude more accurately.

I think you should try flying with both. You'll see why the
Trafficscope is better in performance, just as Aviation Consumer did.



Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> > But I understand your myopia in your desire to market the monroy.
> >
>
> You don't seem to understand at all. All I'm trying to aim for here is
> a fair representation of the AvCon article. That, in my humble opinion,
> was not given by your original post. In fact, the post directly
> contradicted the "Monroy has the egde" summary that AvCon gives both in
> the article and the lead-in.
>
> Note that I have nowhere in my postings said that I think the Monroy is
> better or anything like it. This is solely about the Avcon article.
>
> Let's agree to disagree...

[James M. Knox]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

>> The XPNDR light on the ATD keeps blinking, just exactly like it is
>> seeing local replies!!!
>
> Was your DME on? It will make the light go off, too.

Pulled the DME out of the plane years ago. Shouldn't have been any
intentional radiators in the plane (at least, not on). Now was there any
known high-power ground radiators in the area (nothing more than the
occasional phone tower). This is pretty much just open farmland. And it
doesn't normally happen here. [As opposed to plenty of other areas around
central Texas where the ATD will always get a false alarm.]

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

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

> Did you know that? The
> issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to a
> title.
>

I'm a journalist...

In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article, saying
"We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ, it
should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the one
and only passage directly comparing the units.

It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that vein,
even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.



--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

Which quote they use is subject to a random sample obviously, because
they continue on that quote to explain why for capability they pick
the Trafficscope.

My point is they mention clearly that the price difference is
justified by the added capability of the Trafficscope.

Like they said, you get what you pay for.


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> BHelman,
>
> > Did you know that? The
> > issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to a
> > title.
> >
>
> I'm a journalist...
>
> In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article, saying
> "We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ, it
> should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the one
> and only passage directly comparing the units.
>
> It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that vein,
> even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
> better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.

[Loran]

You know, I actually know John Spencer and when I asked him about this
article, he let me know that he said the monro 300 did not perform as
well as the surecheck vrx. So I asked him why the "razor edge"
headline he said he didn't write that, but it is was a guy named paul
bertorelli who did that. But paul is also in a mooney club with the
guys from the monro company.

I thought that was a pretty interesting discovery, considering they
are supposed to be unbiased, I wonder just how unbiased their final
editors are.




(BHelman) wrote in message >...
> Which quote they use is subject to a random sample obviously, because
> they continue on that quote to explain why for capability they pick
> the Trafficscope.
>
> My point is they mention clearly that the price difference is
> justified by the added capability of the Trafficscope.
>
> Like they said, you get what you pay for.
>
>
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> > BHelman,
> >
> > > Did you know that? The
> > > issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to a
> > > title.
> > >
> >
> > I'm a journalist...
> >
> > In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article, saying
> > "We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ, it
> > should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the one
> > and only passage directly comparing the units.
> >
> > It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that vein,
> > even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
> > better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.

[James M. Knox]

(Loran) wrote in
om:

> ...he said he didn't write that, but it is was a guy named paul
> bertorelli who did that. But paul is also in a mooney club with the
> guys from the monro company.
>
> I thought that was a pretty interesting discovery, considering they
> are supposed to be unbiased, I wonder just how unbiased their final
> editors are.

I have known 'Berto for over a decade, and I can't see him changing his
opinion for anything less than a 2x4 upside the head. <G> Certainly not
because he is in the same "club" as someone else. [Besides, my experience
is that the Monroy guy has so little people skills that he may have no
friends.]

Send Paul an e:mail and ask him! He'll give you his honest reason (even if
it is "it's cute." <G>).

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

> I actually know John Spencer
>

Well, maybe you do. But maybe you're a dog. On the internet, who knows.

The guy's name is Jon, not John.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Loran]

Actually his name is Jonathan.

I don't get the dog part????


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Loran,
>
> > I actually know John Spencer
> >
>
> Well, maybe you do. But maybe you're a dog. On the internet, who knows.
>
> The guy's name is Jon, not John.

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

> I don't get the dog part????
>

It's an old cartoon from the early days of the web, with two dogs
sitting in front of a computer and one saying to the other "On the
internet, no one knows if you're a dog"

As for the original subject: Paul tells a different story. I'm waiting
for Jon's reply, but somehow I don't think it will support your
posting.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thierry]

We (proxalert) contacted Aviation consumer on mid february to offer to
send a Proxalert R5 for evaluation. They came back 2 weeks after
saying it's too late as they were unable to buy a device from a
distributor. Our contact info are available since November 2003 but
they never contacted us.

If you don't see a follow up very soon on the R5 the conclusion will
be evident ...


(Loran) wrote in message >...
> You know, I actually know John Spencer and when I asked him about this
> article, he let me know that he said the monro 300 did not perform as
> well as the surecheck vrx. So I asked him why the "razor edge"
> headline he said he didn't write that, but it is was a guy named paul
> bertorelli who did that. But paul is also in a mooney club with the
> guys from the monro company.
>
> I thought that was a pretty interesting discovery, considering they
> are supposed to be unbiased, I wonder just how unbiased their final
> editors are.
>
>
>
>
> (BHelman) wrote in message >...
> > Which quote they use is subject to a random sample obviously, because
> > they continue on that quote to explain why for capability they pick
> > the Trafficscope.
> >
> > My point is they mention clearly that the price difference is
> > justified by the added capability of the Trafficscope.
> >
> > Like they said, you get what you pay for.
> >
> >
> > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> > > BHelman,
> > >
> > > > Did you know that? The
> > > > issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to a
> > > > title.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm a journalist...
> > >
> > > In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article, saying
> > > "We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ, it
> > > should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the one
> > > and only passage directly comparing the units.
> > >
> > > It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that vein,
> > > even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
> > > better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.

[Thomas Borchert]

Loran,

Jon got back to me. He says he doesn't know you, doesn't know a Loran
and doesn't use it, either. You didn't really think you could get away
with that, did you? Does Surecheck really need that kind of
"advertising"?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Thierry,

> the conclusion will
> be evident ...
>

The first conclusion we can safely draw here is that Loran lied. So
let's not jump to any other, shall we?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jon S]

OK, let's get something straight here -- I am the Jon Spencer (and it's Jon,
not John) who wrote that article. I have talked to almost nobody about that
article. In fact the only people with whom I have discussed technical
details were two people who called me from SureCheck.

If you are one of those people, it would have been more honest to identify
yourself as such (if not, then I've never had any conversation with you).
Furthermore, if you are one of the people from SureCheck, saying you "know"
me is disingenuous at best -- I've spoken to you once.

Finally, whoever you are, I never said that the SureCheck performed better.
It was my opinion that it was so close that it was really a matter of what
features were important to you. Paul and I did the testing together, and he
said he felt the Monroy had a very slight edge. As we do with any article,
we discussed this. I have been writing for many years and I have no qualms
about disagreeing with my editor if that seems to be warranted. After
bouncing it back and forth, we decided to go with the Monroy by a hair. Let
me emphasize that this was not an editor imposing his opinion, it was a
discussion between editor and writer, both of whom participated in the
testing (in fact, we swapped seats so for part of the testing he flew and I
tested, and for part of the testing I flew and he tested), followed by a
joint decision.

Oh yeah, the "razor's edge" headline and your implication that there was
something unethical about the editor writing that -- the editor writes all
headlines. That's part of his job. The writer suggests a head, but rarely
expects it to be the final one since the headline is related to the rest of
the issue as well as the specific article.

Now, technically does the editor get the final say on recommendations? Sure,
that's his job. The editor gets final say on everything, pretty much on the
basis of job description. But a good editor, and Paul is one of the best
I've worked for, makes recommendations in concert with his writers rather
than imposing them.

As for bias, we answer to nobody on our recommendations except for issues of
fact, and we are careful as we can be on that. There is no "final editor"
other than Paul, and Paul is one of the most doggedly ethical and outspoken
people I know. Knowing Paul through some club (assuming that's even true...)
would buy you nothing with him when it comes to reviewing your product. He'd
be happy to sit down with you over drinks and tell you your product is a
piece of crap if that's what he thinks.

Frankly, I sincerely hope you are not associated with SureCheck. Accusing
Aviation Consumer's editor of bias based on his membership in a club with
another business owner is pretty tacky.


Jonathan Spencer
Aviation Consumer




"Loran" > wrote in message
om...
> You know, I actually know John Spencer and when I asked him about this
> article, he let me know that he said the monro 300 did not perform as
> well as the surecheck vrx. So I asked him why the "razor edge"
> headline he said he didn't write that, but it is was a guy named paul
> bertorelli who did that. But paul is also in a mooney club with the
> guys from the monro company.
>
> I thought that was a pretty interesting discovery, considering they
> are supposed to be unbiased, I wonder just how unbiased their final
> editors are.
>
>
>
>
> (BHelman) wrote in message
>...
> > Which quote they use is subject to a random sample obviously, because
> > they continue on that quote to explain why for capability they pick
> > the Trafficscope.
> >
> > My point is they mention clearly that the price difference is
> > justified by the added capability of the Trafficscope.
> >
> > Like they said, you get what you pay for.
> >
> >
> > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
>...
> > > BHelman,
> > >
> > > > Did you know that? The
> > > > issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to
a
> > > > title.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm a journalist...
> > >
> > > In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article, saying
> > > "We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ, it
> > > should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the one
> > > and only passage directly comparing the units.
> > >
> > > It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that
vein,
> > > even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
> > > better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.

[Jon S]

Thierry --

We didn't contact Proxalert when we started the article because we had never
heard of you. Your website did not turn up in the search engine, no
distributors mentioned you, and we never saw any ads. When we finally did
find your website there was no phone number listed. There was a distributor
listed on the site (Eastern Avionics, the only distributor in the US) and we
called them immediately. In fact, since we were in southern Florida at the
time, we planned to fly down to Eastern Avionics in Punta Gorda, borrow a
unit for the day, and include it in the article.

I spoke to Eastern personally. At first they didn't even know what I was
talking about. Finally they rummaged around in their database and found you.
But not only did they not have any units in stock, they also didn't have a
phone number for you!

So please, don't imply that all your contact information was in place and we
simply didn't do our homework.

Jonathan Spencer
Aviation Consumer


"Thierry" > wrote in message
m...
> We (proxalert) contacted Aviation consumer on mid february to offer to
> send a Proxalert R5 for evaluation. They came back 2 weeks after
> saying it's too late as they were unable to buy a device from a
> distributor. Our contact info are available since November 2003 but
> they never contacted us.
>
> If you don't see a follow up very soon on the R5 the conclusion will
> be evident ...
>
>
> (Loran) wrote in message
>...
> > You know, I actually know John Spencer and when I asked him about this
> > article, he let me know that he said the monro 300 did not perform as
> > well as the surecheck vrx. So I asked him why the "razor edge"
> > headline he said he didn't write that, but it is was a guy named paul
> > bertorelli who did that. But paul is also in a mooney club with the
> > guys from the monro company.
> >
> > I thought that was a pretty interesting discovery, considering they
> > are supposed to be unbiased, I wonder just how unbiased their final
> > editors are.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (BHelman) wrote in message
>...
> > > Which quote they use is subject to a random sample obviously, because
> > > they continue on that quote to explain why for capability they pick
> > > the Trafficscope.
> > >
> > > My point is they mention clearly that the price difference is
> > > justified by the added capability of the Trafficscope.
> > >
> > > Like they said, you get what you pay for.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
>...
> > > > BHelman,
> > > >
> > > > > Did you know that? The
> > > > > issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add
to a
> > > > > title.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm a journalist...
> > > >
> > > > In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article,
saying
> > > > "We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ,
it
> > > > should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the
one
> > > > and only passage directly comparing the units.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that
vein,
> > > > even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
> > > > better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.

[BHelman]

Hi! This is really Ronald Reagan, and I fully endorse the new Monroy!

The monroy spam keeps getting better and better.

What next? Albert Einstein? Maybe Tom Cruise?





"Jon S" > wrote in message >...
> OK, let's get something straight here -- I am the Jon Spencer (and it's Jon,
> not John) who wrote that article. I have talked to almost nobody about that
> article. In fact the only people with whom I have discussed technical
> details were two people who called me from SureCheck.
>
> If you are one of those people, it would have been more honest to identify
> yourself as such (if not, then I've never had any conversation with you).
> Furthermore, if you are one of the people from SureCheck, saying you "know"
> me is disingenuous at best -- I've spoken to you once.
>
> Finally, whoever you are, I never said that the SureCheck performed better.
> It was my opinion that it was so close that it was really a matter of what
> features were important to you. Paul and I did the testing together, and he
> said he felt the Monroy had a very slight edge. As we do with any article,
> we discussed this. I have been writing for many years and I have no qualms
> about disagreeing with my editor if that seems to be warranted. After
> bouncing it back and forth, we decided to go with the Monroy by a hair. Let
> me emphasize that this was not an editor imposing his opinion, it was a
> discussion between editor and writer, both of whom participated in the
> testing (in fact, we swapped seats so for part of the testing he flew and I
> tested, and for part of the testing I flew and he tested), followed by a
> joint decision.
>
> Oh yeah, the "razor's edge" headline and your implication that there was
> something unethical about the editor writing that -- the editor writes all
> headlines. That's part of his job. The writer suggests a head, but rarely
> expects it to be the final one since the headline is related to the rest of
> the issue as well as the specific article.
>
> Now, technically does the editor get the final say on recommendations? Sure,
> that's his job. The editor gets final say on everything, pretty much on the
> basis of job description. But a good editor, and Paul is one of the best
> I've worked for, makes recommendations in concert with his writers rather
> than imposing them.
>
> As for bias, we answer to nobody on our recommendations except for issues of
> fact, and we are careful as we can be on that. There is no "final editor"
> other than Paul, and Paul is one of the most doggedly ethical and outspoken
> people I know. Knowing Paul through some club (assuming that's even true...)
> would buy you nothing with him when it comes to reviewing your product. He'd
> be happy to sit down with you over drinks and tell you your product is a
> piece of crap if that's what he thinks.
>
> Frankly, I sincerely hope you are not associated with SureCheck. Accusing
> Aviation Consumer's editor of bias based on his membership in a club with
> another business owner is pretty tacky.
>
>
> Jonathan Spencer
> Aviation Consumer
>
>
>
>
> "Loran" > wrote in message
> om...
> > You know, I actually know John Spencer and when I asked him about this
> > article, he let me know that he said the monro 300 did not perform as
> > well as the surecheck vrx. So I asked him why the "razor edge"
> > headline he said he didn't write that, but it is was a guy named paul
> > bertorelli who did that. But paul is also in a mooney club with the
> > guys from the monro company.
> >
> > I thought that was a pretty interesting discovery, considering they
> > are supposed to be unbiased, I wonder just how unbiased their final
> > editors are.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > (BHelman) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Which quote they use is subject to a random sample obviously, because
> > > they continue on that quote to explain why for capability they pick
> > > the Trafficscope.
> > >
> > > My point is they mention clearly that the price difference is
> > > justified by the added capability of the Trafficscope.
> > >
> > > Like they said, you get what you pay for.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > BHelman,
> > > >
> > > > > Did you know that? The
> > > > > issue editor skims through it and randomly picks something to add to
> a
> > > > > title.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm a journalist...
> > > >
> > > > In this case, the lead-in was a direct quote from the article, saying
> > > > "We give the Monroy a razor thin edge". While you obviously differ, it
> > > > should be possible to concede the article says just that - in the one
> > > > and only passage directly comparing the units.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn't say "The Surecheck is way better" or something in that
> vein,
> > > > even if you keep claiming it does. It doesn't say "The Monroy is way
> > > > better" or anything like that, either. But I never claimed that.

[[email protected]]

I'm not going to offer my two cent's worth about which unit is best
because I don't have a clue. But, I'm using the Monroy 200 that is
mounted in my panel, with a belly antenna. It sometimes indicates
traffic that I never see but most of the time I can find it when I
look. And it frequently alerts me to planes I probably wouldn't have
seen very quickly due to their relative location.

To me, one of the aspects I find valuable -- go ahead, call me weird
-- is that it is not totally reliable. I don't trust it to find all
traffic so I don't blithely rely on it. It doesn't identify direction
or altitude, and it doesn't identify mulitiple aircraft. So I keep
watching. Maybe I'd do the same if I had a unit that did everything
reliably, but since I don't I'm very pleased with this unit.

[Jon S]

What kind of belly antenna are you using -- is it a DME antenna or a
transponder antenna? We tried both the Monroy and the SureCheck units with a
DME antenna (because it was on the plane and not being used) and neither one
worked at all. The SureCheck people said DME antennas don't work well, but
Monroy said they would, so we weren't sure whether it was this particular
antenna or DME antennas in general.

JonS


> wrote in message
...
> I'm not going to offer my two cent's worth about which unit is best
> because I don't have a clue. But, I'm using the Monroy 200 that is
> mounted in my panel, with a belly antenna. It sometimes indicates
> traffic that I never see but most of the time I can find it when I
> look. And it frequently alerts me to planes I probably wouldn't have
> seen very quickly due to their relative location.
>
> To me, one of the aspects I find valuable -- go ahead, call me weird
> -- is that it is not totally reliable. I don't trust it to find all
> traffic so I don't blithely rely on it. It doesn't identify direction
> or altitude, and it doesn't identify mulitiple aircraft. So I keep
> watching. Maybe I'd do the same if I had a unit that did everything
> reliably, but since I don't I'm very pleased with this unit.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 17:23:15 -0400, "Jon S"
> wrote:

>What kind of belly antenna are you using -- is it a DME antenna or a
>transponder antenna? We tried both the Monroy and the SureCheck units with a
>DME antenna (because it was on the plane and not being used) and neither one
>worked at all. The SureCheck people said DME antennas don't work well, but
>Monroy said they would, so we weren't sure whether it was this particular
>antenna or DME antennas in general.
>

I have a transponder antenna located in center about three feet aft of
wheels.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jon,

> We tried both the Monroy and the SureCheck units with a
> DME antenna (because it was on the plane and not being used) and neither one
> worked at all.
>

There is a difference between DME and Transponder antennas? I was told there
isn't.

We use ours with a cheapo single-stick transponder antenna on the belly (see
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ted_transponder.php - it's
listed as suitable for DME and transponder). Didn't work at first - which
turned out to be faulty antenna wiring. I would suggest your failure to use it
with a mounted antenna might be because of problems with the antenna.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jon S]

Thomas --

Just spoke to Paul about this. Turns out you're right -- there is no
difference. Paul checked with his radio person and was told it's exactly the
same part number. Interesting because SureCheck was adamant that a DME
antenna won't work and a transponder antenna will.

JonS


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jon,
>
> > We tried both the Monroy and the SureCheck units with a
> > DME antenna (because it was on the plane and not being used) and neither
one
> > worked at all.
> >
>
> There is a difference between DME and Transponder antennas? I was told
there
> isn't.
>
> We use ours with a cheapo single-stick transponder antenna on the belly
(see
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ted_transponder.php - it's
> listed as suitable for DME and transponder). Didn't work at first - which
> turned out to be faulty antenna wiring. I would suggest your failure to
use it
> with a mounted antenna might be because of problems with the antenna.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[BHelman]

In all fairness I re-read the trafficscope manual, and I think what
they are suggesting is that they only approve of certain antenna
models.

My thought is they didn't want to give a "blanket approval" for just
any antenna on the market. This is understandable, considering
transponder-only antennas have smaller bandwidths than the broadband
DME antennas.

I used to work bench test transponders (in my much younger years) and
when I used the broadband antennas the power loss was much higher than
in the dedicated transponder antennas. The typical broadband antenna
had a VSWR of around 1.5, where the transponder antenna had a 1.2 In
Lamens terms, this COULD mean a difference of several dB depending on
ground-plane arrangements.

I have two of the commant blade antennas installed, one above just
rear of my comm, another forward of my transponder antenna, and
trafficscope functions flawlessly. One consideration I noticed is
that you do need to place the antennas 27 cm apart in a vertical
plane. When I asked them about this they explained that it helps their
splitter maintain phase balance.

In reading their publications, it appears that Surecheck gives more
attention to detail. They specify cable type, and antennas. This can
mean a major difference in range, especially if you took the monroy
advice and just wired up some lossy RG-58 and an unknown DME antenna.
At the frequency these guys operate at, a few extra feet of RG-58
could mean a range difference on more than a mile.


"Jon S" > wrote in message >...
> Thomas --
>
> Just spoke to Paul about this. Turns out you're right -- there is no
> difference. Paul checked with his radio person and was told it's exactly the
> same part number. Interesting because SureCheck was adamant that a DME
> antenna won't work and a transponder antenna will.
>
> JonS
>
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jon,
> >
> > > We tried both the Monroy and the SureCheck units with a
> > > DME antenna (because it was on the plane and not being used) and neither
> one
> > > worked at all.
> > >
> >
> > There is a difference between DME and Transponder antennas? I was told
> there
> > isn't.
> >
> > We use ours with a cheapo single-stick transponder antenna on the belly
> (see
> > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ted_transponder.php - it's
> > listed as suitable for DME and transponder). Didn't work at first - which
> > turned out to be faulty antenna wiring. I would suggest your failure to
> use it
> > with a mounted antenna might be because of problems with the antenna.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> >

[Jon S]

Thanks for that information. In a quick look on the web, all the antennas I
found were labeled DME/transponder (in other words, dual use) and all were
labeled "broadband" but perhaps there are some that specifically for
transponders that I didn't see. I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type (which is
what we were using).

However, we were not getting poor performance, we were getting no
performance -- even when the other aircraft were a mile or less away (based
on the TIS display and visual ID). Of course, it's also possible that that
particular antenna had a problem. We did take the care to make up an
extension from RG-142 cable as recommended by SureCheck and we did check the
extension for shorts and continuity. Unfortunately, we did not have the time
to explore this further or try another antenna.

I believe we did say in the article that our results were inconclusive on
external antennas and that our problem might have been a bad antenna.

JonS



"BHelman" > wrote in message
om...
> In all fairness I re-read the trafficscope manual, and I think what
> they are suggesting is that they only approve of certain antenna
> models.
>
> My thought is they didn't want to give a "blanket approval" for just
> any antenna on the market. This is understandable, considering
> transponder-only antennas have smaller bandwidths than the broadband
> DME antennas.
>
> I used to work bench test transponders (in my much younger years) and
> when I used the broadband antennas the power loss was much higher than
> in the dedicated transponder antennas. The typical broadband antenna
> had a VSWR of around 1.5, where the transponder antenna had a 1.2 In
> Lamens terms, this COULD mean a difference of several dB depending on
> ground-plane arrangements.
>
> I have two of the commant blade antennas installed, one above just
> rear of my comm, another forward of my transponder antenna, and
> trafficscope functions flawlessly. One consideration I noticed is
> that you do need to place the antennas 27 cm apart in a vertical
> plane. When I asked them about this they explained that it helps their
> splitter maintain phase balance.
>
> In reading their publications, it appears that Surecheck gives more
> attention to detail. They specify cable type, and antennas. This can
> mean a major difference in range, especially if you took the monroy
> advice and just wired up some lossy RG-58 and an unknown DME antenna.
> At the frequency these guys operate at, a few extra feet of RG-58
> could mean a range difference on more than a mile.
>
>
> "Jon S" > wrote in message
>...
> > Thomas --
> >
> > Just spoke to Paul about this. Turns out you're right -- there is no
> > difference. Paul checked with his radio person and was told it's exactly
the
> > same part number. Interesting because SureCheck was adamant that a DME
> > antenna won't work and a transponder antenna will.
> >
> > JonS
> >
> >
> > "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Jon,
> > >
> > > > We tried both the Monroy and the SureCheck units with a
> > > > DME antenna (because it was on the plane and not being used) and
neither
> > one
> > > > worked at all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > There is a difference between DME and Transponder antennas? I was told
> > there
> > > isn't.
> > >
> > > We use ours with a cheapo single-stick transponder antenna on the
belly
> > (see
> > > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/ted_transponder.php -
it's
> > > listed as suitable for DME and transponder). Didn't work at first -
which
> > > turned out to be faulty antenna wiring. I would suggest your failure
to
> > use it
> > > with a mounted antenna might be because of problems with the antenna.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
> > >

[Thomas Borchert]

Jon,

> I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type (which is
> what we were using).
>

Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Jon,
>
> > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type (which is
> > what we were using).
> >
>
> Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
> covered by a plastic blade.
>
> I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[Jon S]

You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication (writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" > wrote in message
om...
> You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
> learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
> phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
> unit.
>
> I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
> design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
> epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
> more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
> free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
> helps the H-plane radiation.
>
> Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".
>
>
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
>...
> > Jon,
> >
> > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
(which is
> > > what we were using).
> > >
> >
> > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
> > covered by a plastic blade.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[Thomas Borchert]

BHelman,

I know I shouldn't dignify you with an answer but

> I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
> design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
> epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
> more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
> free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
> helps the H-plane radiation.
>

That's why I said "I'm told". Maybe I was told wrong. In that case,
thanks for educating me. OTOH, maybe there ARE blade antennas which fit
the description I was given.

What is your problem??? I may have a different opinion than you, but
that's no reason to accuse me of "boastering inaccuracte facts." I dare
you to quote even one single post of mine where I did that. Kindly stick
with the truth regarding the content of my posts, please. Differing
opinions are a fact of life.

PS: At least you *have* my name to call me names with it. You don't even
use your full real name. Which, somehow, isn't surprising.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BHelman]

Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" > wrote in message >...
> You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left out
> the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
> antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people would
> pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived as
> a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your credibility
> suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
> communication that anyone who works in any field of communication (writing,
> lecturing, etc.) is taught.
>
> You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at your
> fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
> interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across as
> what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a good
> reflection of who you really are.
>
> JonS
>
>
>
> "BHelman" > wrote in message
> om...
> > You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
> > learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
> > phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
> > unit.
> >
> > I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
> > design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
> > epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
> > more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
> > free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
> > helps the H-plane radiation.
> >
> > Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".
> >
> >
> > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Jon,
> > >
> > > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > > better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
> (which is
> > > > what we were using).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
> > > covered by a plastic blade.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[Jon S]

Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication, not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously, you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" > wrote in message
om...
> Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
> financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
> such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
> LONG RANGE shot in the dark.
>
>
> "Jon S" > wrote in message
>...
> > You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left
out
> > the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
> > antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
would
> > pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived
as
> > a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
credibility
> > suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
> > communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
(writing,
> > lecturing, etc.) is taught.
> >
> > You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at
your
> > fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
> > interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across
as
> > what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a
good
> > reflection of who you really are.
> >
> > JonS
> >
> >
> >
> > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
> > > learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
> > > phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
> > > unit.
> > >
> > > I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
> > > design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
> > > epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
> > > more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
> > > free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
> > > helps the H-plane radiation.
> > >
> > > Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".
> > >
> > >
> > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Jon,
> > > >
> > > > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > > > better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
> > (which is
> > > > > what we were using).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and
ball,
> > > > covered by a plastic blade.
> > > >
> > > > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[BHelman]

I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.

The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.



"Jon S" > wrote in message >...
> Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication, not
> the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us by
> our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
> that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
> communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help from
> any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously, you
> can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a suggestion
> for a way for you to make your points more effectively.
>
> JonS
>
>
> "BHelman" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
> > financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
> > such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
> > LONG RANGE shot in the dark.
> >
> >
> > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left
> out
> > > the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
> > > antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
> would
> > > pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived
> as
> > > a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
> credibility
> > > suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
> > > communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
> (writing,
> > > lecturing, etc.) is taught.
> > >
> > > You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at
> your
> > > fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
> > > interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across
> as
> > > what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a
> good
> > > reflection of who you really are.
> > >
> > > JonS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
> > > > learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
> > > > phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
> > > > unit.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
> > > > design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
> > > > epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
> > > > more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
> > > > free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
> > > > helps the H-plane radiation.
> > > >
> > > > Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > Jon,
> > > > >
> > > > > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > > > > better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
> (which is
> > > > > > what we were using).
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and
> ball,
> > > > > covered by a plastic blade.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[Jon S]

I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what biases
we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on the
Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking for a
demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any points
about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a brief
phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on use of
an external antenna.

The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the manufacturers
were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these phone
calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy of
the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
would print something if we found significant differences).

So where's your problem?

JonS



"BHelman" > wrote in message
om...
> I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
> who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
> from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
> little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
> "editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.
>
> The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.
>
>
>
> "Jon S" > wrote in message
>...
> > Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication,
not
> > the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us
by
> > our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
> > that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
> > communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help
from
> > any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously,
you
> > can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a
suggestion
> > for a way for you to make your points more effectively.
> >
> > JonS
> >
> >
> > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
> > > financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
> > > such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
> > > LONG RANGE shot in the dark.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and
left
> > out
> > > > the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with
these
> > > > antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
> > would
> > > > pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
perceived
> > as
> > > > a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
> > credibility
> > > > suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
> > > > communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
> > (writing,
> > > > lecturing, etc.) is taught.
> > > >
> > > > You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts
at
> > your
> > > > fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be
more
> > > > interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come
across
> > as
> > > > what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't
a
> > good
> > > > reflection of who you really are.
> > > >
> > > > JonS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I
have
> > > > > learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
> > > > > phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the
Monroy
> > > > > unit.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a
ball
> > > > > design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
> > > > > epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
> > > > > more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well
as
> > > > > free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
> > > > > helps the H-plane radiation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > Jon,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > > > > > better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball
type
> > (which is
> > > > > > > what we were using).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick
and
> > ball,
> > > > > > covered by a plastic blade.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[BHelman]

Guilty conscious there?

I was referring to the Monroy re-seller Thomas Borchert, and the
"editors" of publications who do "reviews" but their intention is to
sell their line of avionics, like Eastern Avionics or Aviation-west,
etc.

The point is every publication or editor will have some bias, some
more obvious than others.



"Jon S" > wrote in message >...
> I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what biases
> we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on the
> Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
> traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking for a
> demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any points
> about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a brief
> phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on use of
> an external antenna.
>
> The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the manufacturers
> were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
> editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these phone
> calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy of
> the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
> printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
> version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
> would print something if we found significant differences).
>
> So where's your problem?
>
> JonS
>
>
>
> "BHelman" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
> > who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
> > from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
> > little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
> > "editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.
> >
> > The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication,
> not
> > > the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us
> by
> > > our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
> > > that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
> > > communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help
> from
> > > any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously,
> you
> > > can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a
> suggestion
> > > for a way for you to make your points more effectively.
> > >
> > > JonS
> > >
> > >
> > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
> > > > financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
> > > > such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
> > > > LONG RANGE shot in the dark.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and
> left
> out
> > > > > the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with
> these
> > > > > antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
> would
> > > > > pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
> perceived
> as
> > > > > a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
> credibility
> > > > > suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
> > > > > communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
> (writing,
> > > > > lecturing, etc.) is taught.
> > > > >
> > > > > You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts
> at
> your
> > > > > fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be
> more
> > > > > interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come
> across
> as
> > > > > what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't
> a
> good
> > > > > reflection of who you really are.
> > > > >
> > > > > JonS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I
> have
> > > > > > learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
> > > > > > phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the
> Monroy
> > > > > > unit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a
> ball
> > > > > > design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
> > > > > > epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
> > > > > > more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well
> as
> > > > > > free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
> > > > > > helps the H-plane radiation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > Jon,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > > > > > > better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball
> type
> (which is
> > > > > > > > what we were using).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick
> and
> ball,
> > > > > > > covered by a plastic blade.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[Jon S]

Nope, not a guilty conscience, just curious. After all, you referred to >>an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side<<.
Given that this thread started with a reference to my Aviation Consumer
article, I wondered whether this was another reference to that. Glad it
wasn't.

And yes, of course every publication has some bias. But as a writer it's
really not that hard to be aware of your own biases and write an unbiased
review, especially with the help of an editor whose job it is to keep you
honest.

JonS





"BHelman" > wrote in message
om...
> Guilty conscious there?
>
> I was referring to the Monroy re-seller Thomas Borchert, and the
> "editors" of publications who do "reviews" but their intention is to
> sell their line of avionics, like Eastern Avionics or Aviation-west,
> etc.
>
> The point is every publication or editor will have some bias, some
> more obvious than others.
>
>
>
> "Jon S" > wrote in message
>...
> > I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what
biases
> > we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on
the
> > Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
> > traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking
for a
> > demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any
points
> > about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a
brief
> > phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on
use of
> > an external antenna.
> >
> > The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the
manufacturers
> > were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
> > editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these
phone
> > calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy
of
> > the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
> > printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
> > version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
> > would print something if we found significant differences).
> >
> > So where's your problem?
> >
> > JonS
> >
> >
> >
> > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
> > > who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
> > > from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
> > > little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
> > > "editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.
> > >
> > > The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the
communication,
> > not
> > > > the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of
us
> > by
> > > > our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it,
but
> > > > that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
> > > > communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any
help
> > from
> > > > any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours.
Obviously,
> > you
> > > > can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a
> > suggestion
> > > > for a way for you to make your points more effectively.
> > > >
> > > > JonS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
> > > > > financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who
make
> > > > > such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is
a
> > > > > LONG RANGE shot in the dark.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts
and
> > left
> > out
> > > > > > the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience
with
> > these
> > > > > > antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true,
people
> > would
> > > > > > pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
> > perceived
> > as
> > > > > > a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
> > credibility
> > > > > > suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of
human
> > > > > > communication that anyone who works in any field of
communication
> > (writing,
> > > > > > lecturing, etc.) is taught.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful
facts
> > at
> > your
> > > > > > fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be
> > more
> > > > > > interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you
come
> > across
> > as
> > > > > > what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that
isn't
> > a
> > good
> > > > > > reflection of who you really are.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JonS
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > You pretty much will say anything to promote your product,
that I
> > have
> > > > > > > learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The
lws of
> > > > > > > phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the
> > Monroy
> > > > > > > unit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close
to a
> > ball
> > > > > > > design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and
with an
> > > > > > > epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are
therefore
> > > > > > > more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as
well
> > as
> > > > > > > free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but
also
> > > > > > > helps the H-plane radiation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy
"Borchert".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > > > Jon,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > > > > > > > better results with a blade antenna than the
stick-and-ball
> > type
> > (which is
> > > > > > > > > what we were using).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a
stick
> > and
> > ball,
> > > > > > > > covered by a plastic blade.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[BHelman]

As I earlier stated, I am a friend-by-proxy of Surecheck for various
reasons ( I used both monroy and had lousy customer support and
trafficscope with good customer support as well as meeting with them
in California, and chose trafficscope because of the altitude backup
and customer support)

I was born in the night, but not last night, so I know people can be
anyone on the internet....that being said;

If you are who you say your are, if you saw traffic on both units,
which one would you have trusted more in terms of performance and
reliability?

Because my experience was that the Monroy jumped around between
relative altitude and actual, as well as range between 1 NM and 5 NM.
My experience with the trafficscope continues to be range within .03
NM of what ATC tells me and relative altitude being dead on.





"Jon S" > wrote in message >...
> Nope, not a guilty conscience, just curious. After all, you referred to >>an
> "editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side<<.
> Given that this thread started with a reference to my Aviation Consumer
> article, I wondered whether this was another reference to that. Glad it
> wasn't.
>
> And yes, of course every publication has some bias. But as a writer it's
> really not that hard to be aware of your own biases and write an unbiased
> review, especially with the help of an editor whose job it is to keep you
> honest.
>
> JonS
>
>
>
>
>
> "BHelman" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Guilty conscious there?
> >
> > I was referring to the Monroy re-seller Thomas Borchert, and the
> > "editors" of publications who do "reviews" but their intention is to
> > sell their line of avionics, like Eastern Avionics or Aviation-west,
> > etc.
> >
> > The point is every publication or editor will have some bias, some
> > more obvious than others.
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what
> biases
> > > we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on
> the
> > > Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
> > > traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking
> for a
> > > demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any
> points
> > > about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a
> brief
> > > phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on
> use of
> > > an external antenna.
> > >
> > > The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the
> manufacturers
> > > were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
> > > editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these
> phone
> > > calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy
> of
> > > the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
> > > printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
> > > version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
> > > would print something if we found significant differences).
> > >
> > > So where's your problem?
> > >
> > > JonS
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
> > > > who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
> > > > from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
> > > > little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
> > > > "editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.
> > > >
> > > > The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the
> communication,
> not
> > > > > the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of
> us
> by
> > > > > our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it,
> but
> > > > > that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
> > > > > communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any
> help
> from
> > > > > any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours.
> Obviously,
> you
> > > > > can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a
> suggestion
> > > > > for a way for you to make your points more effectively.
> > > > >
> > > > > JonS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
> > > > > > financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who
> make
> > > > > > such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is
> a
> > > > > > LONG RANGE shot in the dark.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Jon S" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts
> and
> > > left
> > > out
> > > > > > > the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience
> with
> these
> > > > > > > antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true,
> people
> would
> > > > > > > pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
> > > perceived
> > > as
> > > > > > > a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
> credibility
> > > > > > > suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of
> human
> > > > > > > communication that anyone who works in any field of
> communication
> (writing,
> > > > > > > lecturing, etc.) is taught.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful
> facts
> > > at
> > > your
> > > > > > > fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be
> more
> > > > > > > interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you
> come
> > > across
> > > as
> > > > > > > what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that
> isn't
> > > a
> > > good
> > > > > > > reflection of who you really are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > JonS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "BHelman" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > > You pretty much will say anything to promote your product,
> that I
> have
> > > > > > > > learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The
> lws of
> > > > > > > > phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the
> Monroy
> > > > > > > > unit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close
> to a
> ball
> > > > > > > > design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and
> with an
> > > > > > > > epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are
> therefore
> > > > > > > > more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as
> well
> as
> > > > > > > > free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but
> also
> > > > > > > > helps the H-plane radiation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy
> "Borchert".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thomas Borchert > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > > > Jon,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
> > > > > > > > > > better results with a blade antenna than the
> stick-and-ball
> > > type
> > > (which is
> > > > > > > > > > what we were using).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a
> stick
> > > and
> > > ball,
> > > > > > > > > covered by a plastic blade.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

[TaxSrv]

"BHelman" wrote:
> My experience with the trafficscope continues to be range within .03
> NM of what ATC tells me and relative altitude being dead on.

All these "passive" devices rely upon received signal strength to
compute distance. Due to wide variability in what actually comes out
of the xponder antenna of general aviation aircraft, consistent .03 NM
accuracy, or even .3 NM, is physically impossible. ATC does not give
me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something new where you fly?
:-)

Fred F.

[BHelman]

"physically impossible." How so? What technology has ever been
branded "physically impossible" which did not find a solution.

"ATC does not give me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something
new where you fly?"

They only give "less than a mile" or "2 miles" generally. If you ask
specifically, they can tell you within tenths, depending on their
technology being used.



"TaxSrv" > wrote in message >...
> "BHelman" wrote:
> > My experience with the trafficscope continues to be range within .03
> > NM of what ATC tells me and relative altitude being dead on.
>
> All these "passive" devices rely upon received signal strength to
> compute distance. Due to wide variability in what actually comes out
> of the xponder antenna of general aviation aircraft, consistent .03 NM
> accuracy, or even .3 NM, is physically impossible. ATC does not give
> me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something new where you fly?
> :-)
>
> Fred F.