Proxalert R5 proximity alerter

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

better yet see what *real* customers say


-- Pasadena, CA 03-Mar-04
Been flying with my Trafficscope for about 2 months, and it has saved
my bacon at least 3 times. The accuracy is amazing. Thanks for
producing such a great product. By the way, I had one of the
Proxalerts... all I can say is don't bother. Very inaccurate. Not sure
who did the ranking, but Trafficscope is much more accurate (and
available). Thanks again.


http://www.avshop.com/catalog/review...5514&#comment2

Apparently people think the proxalert comes up short. Probably the
combination of being a French (not USA) made, and little experience in
collision avoidance.


(Andrew) wrote in message . com...
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

BHelman,

Probably the
combination of being a French (not USA) made


Yeah, that must be it! ROFL!

That sidebar you guys from Surecheck got in Aviation Consumer is
priceless...


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Apparently you have a short memory. I don't work for them.

One of the reasons I like the guys at surecheck, is because they don't
rely on their friends in publications like ol Berto to sell their
products through such obvious slanted editorials. They instead market
their product by hard work and advertising. That is why you see their
products everywhere, in every tradeshow, and all over the internet.
In the end us as pilots and customers always see through the slanting
and attack "sidebars".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

Probably the
combination of being a French (not USA) made


Yeah, that must be it! ROFL!

That sidebar you guys from Surecheck got in Aviation Consumer is
priceless...

BHelman,

because they don't
rely on their friends in publications like ol Berto to sell their
products through such obvious slanted editorials.


There's a reality-distortion field at work here. Here's what happened:

- AvCon did a report which did not give the Surecheck the top spot
- Surecheck misquoted that report to say that the Surecheck did have
the top spot
- AvCon made that fact public and added their opinion about such
behaviour

What could you possibly slant about these events?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

We went through this before. AvCon clearly said in the last paragraph
that surecheck was the better choice.

"the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. 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."


What is there to misinterpret or misquote?

If it is misquoted, they would take legal action, but obviously it is
not misquoted.

You are wanting to agree (to profit from the Monroy sales correct?)
with berto who WRITES for AvCon, who will always favor Monroy, and who
most likely wrote that "sidebar" / headline, not the editor who
actually did the review and said the above quote. There are 2
different editors, with 2 different agendas I think after talking with
the company.

It seems that this series of "sidebars" is the only "positive" public
ackowledgement or endorsement that the Monroy has going, and it is
shaky and limited at best.





Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,

because they don't
rely on their friends in publications like ol Berto to sell their
products through such obvious slanted editorials.


There's a reality-distortion field at work here. Here's what happened:

- AvCon did a report which did not give the Surecheck the top spot
- Surecheck misquoted that report to say that the Surecheck did have
the top spot
- AvCon made that fact public and added their opinion about such
behaviour

What could you possibly slant about these events?

BHelman,


We went through this before.

Indeed. Your post is stunning, with that background.

First, the "quote": The full sentence is:

"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."

That's a pretty important first part, as even you might want to admit.
But instead, you're using the Surecheck tactics. Is that a misquote? In my book,
it damn well is. What does that have to do with any legal action?

The article states elsewhe "We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300."
In your words: What's there to misinterpret?



You are wanting to agree (to profit from the Monroy sales correct?)
with berto who WRITES for AvCon, who will always favor Monroy, and who
most likely wrote that "sidebar" / headline, not the editor who
actually did the review and said the above quote. There are 2
different editors, with 2 different agendas I think after talking with
the company.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but first, you have no idea what I want
to agree with. AvCon has no meaning where I sell the Monroy. As for the writer/
editor thing: The writer of the article himself answered your posts here on the
newsgroup. What is there to misinterpret?


It seems that this series of "sidebars" is the only "positive" public
ackowledgement or endorsement that the Monroy has going, and it is
shaky and limited at best.

As I said, reality distortion at its best.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Is that a misquote? In my book, it damn well is"

Only in your and paul's twisted opinion. You share a small minority
opinion. Everyone else in the industry seems to be passing up the
monroy because it just doesn't perform "as advertised" as well as the
trafficscope.

Your "book" is twisted by your desire for profiting off the Monroy,
and thus it holds little credibility.

Ask around, and you will learn the truth about your products function.
I called just 4 dealers who carry both, and found that they are
getting multiple returns on the Monroy because it gives "False Alerts"
Call the top avionics dealers and get the facts, don't just spew your
propaganda.

I have been flying since 1971 and have seen a lot of companies come
and go. Sometimes it is because of our hairy GA economy, and
sometimes it because the product is just plain worthless. A collision
avoidance device for $700 that just bounces from 1 mile to 4 miles
with random altitude has no place in the GA cockpit.

Listen, I have flown with both units. The monroy bounces all over the
place. How do you explain this when the trafficscope does not??

Anyone who takes collision avoidance seriously should just go out and
fly with both in a "trial period" and see just how they actually stack
up. I did, and I couldn't believe that anyone with realistic
knowledge would ever choose this atd, just as Mr. Spencer says. The
pilots I have spoken to, echo the same response.




Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
BHelman,


We went through this before.

Indeed. Your post is stunning, with that background.

First, the "quote": The full sentence is:

"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."

That's a pretty important first part, as even you might want to admit.
But instead, you're using the Surecheck tactics. Is that a misquote? In my book,
it damn well is. What does that have to do with any legal action?

The article states elsewhe "We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300."
In your words: What's there to misinterpret?



You are wanting to agree (to profit from the Monroy sales correct?)
with berto who WRITES for AvCon, who will always favor Monroy, and who
most likely wrote that "sidebar" / headline, not the editor who
actually did the review and said the above quote. There are 2
different editors, with 2 different agendas I think after talking with
the company.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but first, you have no idea what I want
to agree with. AvCon has no meaning where I sell the Monroy. As for the writer/
editor thing: The writer of the article himself answered your posts here on the
newsgroup. What is there to misinterpret?


It seems that this series of "sidebars" is the only "positive" public
ackowledgement or endorsement that the Monroy has going, and it is
shaky and limited at best.

As I said, reality distortion at its best.

BHelman,

just as Mr. Spencer says.


Huh? When? How?

I'm so happy that I have finally found the source of true objectivity -
you! Excuse my while I LMAO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas --

The real problem with these arguments that "mine is better than yours"
(leaving aside the personal attacks) is that few pilots have ever compared
their favorite unit to a good solid reference. They see it point to traffic
and they see the traffic and decide it saved their bacon (and maybe it did).
But what they don't see is the "ones that got away." As most pilots know,
it's not unusual not to see traffic even when ATC points it out to you. If
your traffic device doesn't point it out and ATC doesn't point it out and
you don't see it, you don't know that it "missed" and so you have no way of
evaluating its hit rate, which is what you really need to know to evaluate a
unit.

As you know from the original article, we used the TIS traffic uplink
display that showed all traffic with a transponder within an altitude range
near ours, so we knew where all the pertinent traffic was and were able to
compare that to each unit. Without a test like that, saying that one unit is
better than another is essentially meaningless.

Jon



"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
BHelman,

just as Mr. Spencer says.


Huh? When? How?

I'm so happy that I have finally found the source of true objectivity -
you! Excuse my while I LMAO.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)