New traffic warning device

Loran,

Since the ATD relies solely on your transponder for altitude,

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

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

That scenario doesn't work for any traffic detector.


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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






Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
Loran,

Since the ATD relies solely on your transponder for altitude,

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

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

That scenario doesn't work for any traffic detector.


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yes, they do.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Also bear in mind the growing amount of Mode S transponders
which transmit regardless of interrogations.

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

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

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

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

James,

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


and those are great for passive traffic detectors.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

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

and those are great for passive traffic detectors.

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

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

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

Wouldn't you find this annoying?



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

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



Just curious have you flown with all three units yet?




Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
Loran,
"Same thing: If my transponder is not interrogated, the target
transponder
won't be, either."

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Yes, they do.

Loran,

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

Wouldn't you find this annoying?


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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
wrote:

Loran,

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

Wouldn't you find this annoying?


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


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

--
Bob Noel

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


Bob Noel wrote in message ...
In article ,
wrote:

Loran,

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

Wouldn't you find this annoying?


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


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