If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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, |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 ----------------------------------------------- |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 ----------------------------------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|