Proxalert R5 Proximity alerter

[Andrew]

Hi,
Aviation Consumer finally evaluated the Proxalert R5 proximity alerter
and what they say is crystal clear : "It has better performance and
features" than other devices and "The R5 is the easy winner over
Surecheck" trafficscope.

Those interested could buy a copy of the article at
www.aviation-consumer.com"

Andrew

[Dave Martin]

At 07:54 21 May 2004, Andrew wrote:
>Hi,
>Aviation Consumer finally evaluated the Proxalert R5
>proximity alerter
>and what they say is crystal clear : 'It has better
>performance and
>features' than other devices and 'The R5 is the easy
>winner over
>Surecheck' trafficscope.
>
>Those interested could buy a copy of the article at
>www.aviation-consumer.com'
>
>Andrew

As one of those who is sceptical about such devices
for glider use, I have looked the following web page
which gives details of the device

http://www.avionix.com/collis.html

To try to keep my comment brief I have cut and pasted
relevent bits, to get the full descrition look at the
web pages

'TrafficScope is a completely self-contained passive
collision avoidance system designed to indicate and
alert traffic around your aircraft. TrafficScope VRX
displays the three most threatening aircraft with digitally-precis
e range'

'The system listens for transponder replies from aircraft
in the area and derives altitude and range information
on-the-fly. When target aircraft are interrogated by
ground radar or any other active system, such as TCAS,
the transponder responds with range and altitude (Mode
C) information.'

'All transponder-equipped aircraft will be displayed
on the easy-to-read, backlit LCD display, along with
TCAS-style warning indicators, and professionally-recorded
audio alerts indicating traffic threats.'

There is a place for such a device, but in free airspace
unless we are all equipped then such a device could
be as much a danger as help. It could lead some to
fly in the belief that they are safe, especially when
the sky gets busy.

It is however a start, but have you seen the price!!!!!

Dave Martin

[Andrew]

Dave Martin > wrote in message >...
> At 07:54 21 May 2004, Andrew wrote:
> >Hi,
> >Aviation Consumer finally evaluated the Proxalert R5
> >proximity alerter
> >and what they say is crystal clear : 'It has better
> >performance and
> >features' than other devices and 'The R5 is the easy
> >winner over
> >Surecheck' trafficscope.
> >
> >Those interested could buy a copy of the article at
> >www.aviation-consumer.com'
> >
> >Andrew
>
> As one of those who is sceptical about such devices
> for glider use, I have looked the following web page
> which gives details of the device
>
> http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
>
> To try to keep my comment brief I have cut and pasted
> relevent bits, to get the full descrition look at the
> web pages
>
> 'TrafficScope is a completely self-contained passive
> collision avoidance system designed to indicate and
> alert traffic around your aircraft. TrafficScope VRX
> displays the three most threatening aircraft with digitally-precis
> e range'
>
> 'The system listens for transponder replies from aircraft
> in the area and derives altitude and range information
> on-the-fly. When target aircraft are interrogated by
> ground radar or any other active system, such as TCAS,
> the transponder responds with range and altitude (Mode
> C) information.'
>
> 'All transponder-equipped aircraft will be displayed
> on the easy-to-read, backlit LCD display, along with
> TCAS-style warning indicators, and professionally-recorded
> audio alerts indicating traffic threats.'
>
> There is a place for such a device, but in free airspace
> unless we are all equipped then such a device could
> be as much a danger as help. It could lead some to
> fly in the belief that they are safe, especially when
> the sky gets busy.
>
> It is however a start, but have you seen the price!!!!!
>
> Dave Martin

What's the cost of a mid air collision ???

According to Aviation COnsumer the Proxalert R5 has better
performances and features than the Surecheck Trafficscope. Considering
a usage in a glider
the R5 power consumption is very low (1 watt) compared to 5 watts for
the Trafficscope. Last but not least the R5 displays simultaneously
the three closest threat including code and trend. Have a look at the
Trafficscope display and you will see by yourself that there is no
room to display the info of these three threats.

Andrew

[John Giddy]

Dave Martin wrote:
> As one of those who is sceptical about such devices
> for glider use, I have looked the following web page
> which gives details of the device
>
> http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
>
> To try to keep my comment brief I have cut and pasted
> relevent bits, to get the full descrition look at the
> web pages
>
> 'TrafficScope is a completely self-contained passive
> collision avoidance system designed to indicate and
> alert traffic around your aircraft. TrafficScope VRX
> displays the three most threatening aircraft with digitally-precis
> e range'
>
> 'The system listens for transponder replies from aircraft
> in the area and derives altitude and range information
> on-the-fly. When target aircraft are interrogated by
> ground radar or any other active system, such as TCAS,
> the transponder responds with range and altitude (Mode
> C) information.'
>> snipped <<

Mode C transponders do NOT transmit "Range" information. The range in
normal operation is measured by the secondary radar which interrogates
the device.
The only information in the transponder transmission is the Code (set
by the pilot on the switches on the transponder) and the Altitude,
taken from an altitude encoder.
AFAIK, these collision warning gadjets use a measure of the received
signal strength as an indication of how far away the transponder is.
This is a rather inaccurate measurement, as it depends on the actual
power output of the transponder, the orientation and possible
shielding of the antennas, as well as the distance.
That being said, I guess some warning is better than no warning, but
don't put too much faith in the "distance" figure.
Cheers, John G.

[BHelman]

My Trafficscope has always been extremely accurate in range. I think
their engineering took into account all of the factors you mentined.
All I can say is that if anyone who is conered with surrounding
traffic, the VRX trafficscope is the most accurate and dependable
device on the market today.


"John Giddy" > wrote in message >...
> Dave Martin wrote:
> > As one of those who is sceptical about such devices
> > for glider use, I have looked the following web page
> > which gives details of the device
> >
> > http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
> >
> > To try to keep my comment brief I have cut and pasted
> > relevent bits, to get the full descrition look at the
> > web pages
> >
> > 'TrafficScope is a completely self-contained passive
> > collision avoidance system designed to indicate and
> > alert traffic around your aircraft. TrafficScope VRX
> > displays the three most threatening aircraft with digitally-precis
> > e range'
> >
> > 'The system listens for transponder replies from aircraft
> > in the area and derives altitude and range information
> > on-the-fly. When target aircraft are interrogated by
> > ground radar or any other active system, such as TCAS,
> > the transponder responds with range and altitude (Mode
> > C) information.'
> >> snipped <<
>
> Mode C transponders do NOT transmit "Range" information. The range in
> normal operation is measured by the secondary radar which interrogates
> the device.
> The only information in the transponder transmission is the Code (set
> by the pilot on the switches on the transponder) and the Altitude,
> taken from an altitude encoder.
> AFAIK, these collision warning gadjets use a measure of the received
> signal strength as an indication of how far away the transponder is.
> This is a rather inaccurate measurement, as it depends on the actual
> power output of the transponder, the orientation and possible
> shielding of the antennas, as well as the distance.
> That being said, I guess some warning is better than no warning, but
> don't put too much faith in the "distance" figure.
> Cheers, John G.

[BHelman]

The proxalert isn't even a competitor. It is made by some guy in
France, and has little support or credibility.

The trafficscope is made in the US and has a lot more support.

As far as power, the R5 is only good with ships powr and to 12 volts.
Very limited compared to the trafficscope which is battery or up to 40
volts.

The aviation consumer article was written by a rival of Surecheck
named bertorelli, and thus isn't a real comparison in my opinion.

For the price, people can get a Trafficscope for $985 which is less
than the proxalert which has many bugs from talking to a couple of
pilots who have tried it.

(Andrew) wrote in message >...
> Dave Martin > wrote in message >...
> > At 07:54 21 May 2004, Andrew wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >Aviation Consumer finally evaluated the Proxalert R5
> > >proximity alerter
> > >and what they say is crystal clear : 'It has better
> > >performance and
> > >features' than other devices and 'The R5 is the easy
> > >winner over
> > >Surecheck' trafficscope.
> > >
> > >Those interested could buy a copy of the article at
> > >www.aviation-consumer.com'
> > >
> > >Andrew
> >
> > As one of those who is sceptical about such devices
> > for glider use, I have looked the following web page
> > which gives details of the device
> >
> > http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
> >
> > To try to keep my comment brief I have cut and pasted
> > relevent bits, to get the full descrition look at the
> > web pages
> >
> > 'TrafficScope is a completely self-contained passive
> > collision avoidance system designed to indicate and
> > alert traffic around your aircraft. TrafficScope VRX
> > displays the three most threatening aircraft with digitally-precis
> > e range'
> >
> > 'The system listens for transponder replies from aircraft
> > in the area and derives altitude and range information
> > on-the-fly. When target aircraft are interrogated by
> > ground radar or any other active system, such as TCAS,
> > the transponder responds with range and altitude (Mode
> > C) information.'
> >
> > 'All transponder-equipped aircraft will be displayed
> > on the easy-to-read, backlit LCD display, along with
> > TCAS-style warning indicators, and professionally-recorded
> > audio alerts indicating traffic threats.'
> >
> > There is a place for such a device, but in free airspace
> > unless we are all equipped then such a device could
> > be as much a danger as help. It could lead some to
> > fly in the belief that they are safe, especially when
> > the sky gets busy.
> >
> > It is however a start, but have you seen the price!!!!!
> >
> > Dave Martin
>
> What's the cost of a mid air collision ???
>
> According to Aviation COnsumer the Proxalert R5 has better
> performances and features than the Surecheck Trafficscope. Considering
> a usage in a glider
> the R5 power consumption is very low (1 watt) compared to 5 watts for
> the Trafficscope. Last but not least the R5 displays simultaneously
> the three closest threat including code and trend. Have a look at the
> Trafficscope display and you will see by yourself that there is no
> room to display the info of these three threats.
>
> Andrew

[Dave Martin]

At 06:48 28 May 2004, Bhelman wrote:
>My Trafficscope has always been extremely accurate
>in >range. I think their engineering took into account
>all of the >factors you mentioned.
>All I can say is that if anyone who is conered with
>surrounding
>traffic, the VRX trafficscope is the most accurate
>and >dependable device on the market today.


OK

Here is the desrcition from the Trafficscope web site...

'The new TrafficScope models contain the latest third-generation
TPAS™ (Traffic Proximity Alert System) technology.
TrafficScope listens for transponder replies from all
aircraft within the detection window and derives altitude
and range information on-the-fly. When target aircraft
are interrogated by ground radar or any other active
system, such as TCAS, the transponder responds with
range and altitude (Mode C) information.

TrafficScope also listens to your own transponder to
establish a base reference. Since virtually 100% of
the US and most outlying airspace falls within radar
coverage, aircraft can be detected with a great amount
of certainty. TrafficScope is mircoprocessor controlled
and utilizes menus to assist pilots in a aspects of
fight.'

UK cost £585

As few gliders in the UK are fitted with transponders,
all most all fly in uncontrolled airspace and airport
radar has difficulty in detecting relatively slow moving
glass gliders. In some case the signals are filtered
out.

I am not being deliberately negative, but at the present
time the benefits do not appear practical. Whilst I
do not doubt that the equipment is dependable it can
only give advice on the target it can see.

It may be worth running a few tests, could you ask
the manufacturers for a few samples?
Dave

[Andrew]

Bhelman is ridiculous ... When Avcon said in their April 2004 issue
surecheck is 'slightly better' than the Monroy Surecheck found useful
to report this
statement on their website.

When the same Aviation Consumer says in their June 2004 that the
Proxalert R5
is the EASY WINNER over surecheck, Surecheck people like Bhelman says
AvCon is biased ...

Have a look at Avcon reaction over Surecheck usage of their logo in
Avcon article 'Surecheck altered reality'. They recommend potential
customers to be very cautious with what they advertize on surecheck
website ...

Saying that Proxalert is not a US company is a lie. Check Arizona
company file !
Nevertheless using this kind of argument is very poor and it shows how
desperate these surecheck guys are ...

One of my best friend is german and worked as the key architect during
the design of the IBM AS/400 in Stuttgart. He designed a wonderful and
very successful product. He is not american so what ?
The transponder system as virtually every piece of technology is based
on international standards this is why the Proxalert R5 works
everywhere with the same performance.

Bhelman reacts as someone who perfectly knows that his product is very
limited and use ridiculous arguments to convince himself that he will
not lose ground on this market.

The Proxalert R5 works from 6 to 35 volts with a power consumption of
1 watt where the surecheck 'pumps' 5 watts.
The surecheck can only display info about one traffic. When there are
more it is lost. No squawk info and no trend. Have a look at their
altitude alerter, they added this function after Proxalert announced
the R5. The R5 includes a very powerful altitude alerter function. The
LCD displays your own MSL altitude and your altitude drift. No need to
scroll thru menu to activate/deactivate the function like on the
surecheck. On the Proxalert R5 you get a dedicated key to set/reset
this function.

Read carefully Aviation Consumer June 2004 article and you will see
that the Proxalert R5 is far better than the surecheck gadget.

This is what they say :

"It is cheaper than the Surecheck(c) and has better performance and
features"

"The R5 is the easy winner over Surecheck(c)"

"We think the R5 is worth the additional $250 over the Monroy(c)"

The surecheck products are very well advertized to hide poor products.
It was the same story for their TPAS shoe box.

Finally Avcon evaluation is the only independant one to trust.

Everybody is fed up by these spam reports posted here by surecheck
friends or owners since months.

Andrew,


Dave Martin > wrote in message >...
> At 07:54 21 May 2004, Andrew wrote:
> >Hi,
> >Aviation Consumer finally evaluated the Proxalert R5
> >proximity alerter
> >and what they say is crystal clear : 'It has better
> >performance and
> >features' than other devices and 'The R5 is the easy
> >winner over
> >Surecheck' trafficscope.
> >
> >Those interested could buy a copy of the article at
> >www.aviation-consumer.com'
> >
> >Andrew
>
> As one of those who is sceptical about such devices
> for glider use, I have looked the following web page
> which gives details of the device
>
> http://www.avionix.com/collis.html
>
> To try to keep my comment brief I have cut and pasted
> relevent bits, to get the full descrition look at the
> web pages
>
> 'TrafficScope is a completely self-contained passive
> collision avoidance system designed to indicate and
> alert traffic around your aircraft. TrafficScope VRX
> displays the three most threatening aircraft with digitally-precis
> e range'
>
> 'The system listens for transponder replies from aircraft
> in the area and derives altitude and range information
> on-the-fly. When target aircraft are interrogated by
> ground radar or any other active system, such as TCAS,
> the transponder responds with range and altitude (Mode
> C) information.'
>
> 'All transponder-equipped aircraft will be displayed
> on the easy-to-read, backlit LCD display, along with
> TCAS-style warning indicators, and professionally-recorded
> audio alerts indicating traffic threats.'
>
> There is a place for such a device, but in free airspace
> unless we are all equipped then such a device could
> be as much a danger as help. It could lead some to
> fly in the belief that they are safe, especially when
> the sky gets busy.
>
> It is however a start, but have you seen the price!!!!!
>
> Dave Martin

[[email protected]]

absolute garbage. The proxcopy isn't less expensive at all. In fact it
is a couple hundred dollars more and falls at the bottom of the list.
http://www.avionix.com/collis.html

As far as avcon, you are reffering to paul who also thought gps would
be decades off from GA. He has little credibility in my book since
1990's

[[email protected]]

Learn English.

[Eric Greenwell]

Could you quote at least a bit of what you are referring to? It's not
always obvious without a quoted portion, especially since my ISP doesn't
always thread them right.

wrote:
> absolute garbage. The proxcopy isn't less expensive at all. In fact it
> is a couple hundred dollars more and falls at the bottom of the list.
> http://www.avionix.com/collis.html

When you say "bottom of list", do you mean "near the end of the page" or
"least desirable"? The page you reference has this assessment on it:

"Hot Tip! The new ProxAlert is the most sophisticated portable
collision avoidance aid on the market. The Cadillac! It's a real bargain
compared with the certified units! …Jim "

So, I'm guessing you meant the Proxalert R5 is very desirable, even it
if it is $200 more. I think that's the usual opinion, though I haven't
used one yet.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[[email protected]]

Proxalert is a knock-off device of the TrafficScope. I flew with both
to evaluate them for our club aircraft. The TrafficScope was faily
accurate, but the Proxalert was was all over the place with both range
and altitude. I wouldn't consider the Proxalert to be a viable option
for accuracy.

[bumper]

I'm not at all sure how you evaluated the Proxalert R5. I've been flying
with mine for over a year now in both my glider and Mooney, out in the
toolies and flying in congested areas while talking to ATC. The Proxalert
has provided reasonably accurate estimates of threat aircraft range and
accurate altitude and trend. The R5 provides info the others don't, squawk
code, so you can tell if the other guy is talking to ATC or not.

Proxalert *was* the clear choice in TPAS up until ShureCheck recently
lowered their prices. Now the R5 comes at a $300 premium . . . tougher
choice.

I have no interest or affiliation with Proxalert, just a satisfied customer.

all the best,

bumper
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Proxalert is a knock-off device of the TrafficScope. I flew with both
> to evaluate them for our club aircraft. The TrafficScope was faily
> accurate, but the Proxalert was was all over the place with both range
> and altitude. I wouldn't consider the Proxalert to be a viable option
> for accuracy.
>

[[email protected]]

Proxalert giving squawk is worthless. It clutters the screen. My
biggest problem with it however, is that it gave constant false
targets. As far as being better, it isn't. It is too big, inaccurate,
and over priced. If you read the Feb. Aviation Consumer, the Proxalert
comes in last place with everything else on the market.
http://www.aviationconsumer.com

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:

> Proxalert giving squawk is worthless. It clutters the screen. My
> biggest problem with it however, is that it gave constant false
> targets. As far as being better, it isn't. It is too big, inaccurate,
> and over priced. If you read the Feb. Aviation Consumer, the Proxalert
> comes in last place with everything else on the market.
> http://www.aviationconsumer.com

Perhaps you could quote a pertinent paragraph or two, at least enough to
see if it's worth spending $13 to read the article.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[bumper]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Proxalert giving squawk is worthless. It clutters the screen. My
> biggest problem with it however, is that it gave constant false
> targets. As far as being better, it isn't. It is too big, inaccurate,
> and over priced. If you read the Feb. Aviation Consumer, the Proxalert
> comes in last place with everything else on the market.
> http://www.aviationconsumer.com
>

Perhaps you don't fly in busy areas where there are multiple potential
threat aircraft? Having the squawk code tells you if the threat aircraft is
getting flight following or on an IFR flight plan, and thus has probably
been advised of your presence if there's a potential conflict. A VFR squawk
code means the threat aircraft probably is unaware of you. The squawk also
allows you to ID multiple aircraft, some of which may move out of, and then
back into range. When this occurs with an aircraft you've already visually
acquired, you have a real good idea of the bearing he's coming from. Squawk
useless? Hardly.



False targets? I haven't experienced that with my R5. Are you saying that
the R5 you tested alerts and you were unable to visually acquire the target?
If so, an optometrist may be of assistance.



As to size; the R5 is larger, but it's "lip" design means it has a low
profile on the glareshield. I've flown with it in both my Mooney and ASH26E
and find it doesn't block the outside view at all.



Since Shurcheck dropped its price by $300, it does make the choice between
the R5 and VRX a tougher call. I think either unit will assist in collision
avoidance.



all the best,



bumper

(no financial interest in Proxalert)