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
|
|||
|
|||
I did fly with one and had one. The Monroy would give traffic alerts
of almost every airliner flying thousands of feet above me, and others that passed well below me. It was clear to me very quickly that the claim of "within 1500 feet" was just not the case. It sounds like you like that unit, but my opinion is that it was just more of an annoyance than useful because aircraft well above me or below me (or even some that never existed at all!) would set it off, where as I have never had that problem with this traffic scope. I think knowing the altitude of the other plane is the biggest key. As an example, I was flying 2 days ago when my traffic scope started showing range decreasing rapidly and his altitude 200 feet above me, at .6 miles I STILL did not see him so I just descended 300 feet. about 2 seconds later the Baron passed above me by 500 feet in exact opposite direction. With the Monroy I would not have known what to do but panic. I guess it comes down to personal preference and budget, because there are still some who do prefer the ADF / VOR as opposed to upgrading to GPS, in fact I was one for 6 years!! Thomas Borchert wrote in message ... BHelman, The Monroy doesn't account for altitude, so when you have a 737 flying overhead thousands of feet up the Monroy would be screaming bloody murder. Clearly, you haven't flown with the unit. This statement couldn't be more wrong. The antenna characteristics are such that traffic being more than 1500 or 2000 feet different in altitude will not be annunciated. Altitude has NEVER be a problem for us in actual operation. Whenever you get a warning for traffic close enough to be visible, when scanning outside in a sensible range, you'll spot that traffic, on our experience. Thus, I have looked at the vrx with interest from a gadget freak standpoint, but I don't think the altitude sensing would be worth that much money to me. I would, however, love to see the vr in action. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
BHelman,
The Monroy would give traffic alerts of almost every airliner flying thousands of feet above me, and others that passed well below me. Hmm. Simply doesn't happen with ours. Do you have the feeling that, apart from the altitude feature, the general detection is more reliable with the "new-gen" Surecheck unit? IOW, would you think that even without the altitude indication, the vr would be a better unit than the Monroy? -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Clearly, you haven't flown with the unit. This statement couldn't be more wrong. The antenna characteristics are such that traffic being more than 1500 or 2000 feet different in altitude will not be annunciated. Altitude has NEVER be a problem for us in actual operation. It *has* to be affected by the limits imposed by positioning in the particular aircraft, internal antenna vs external, etc. My experience varies with yours. I get alerts often from flight level traffic I never see, and I get some alerts from same altitude traffic so late it worries me. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Marco,
Don't have feedback but i noticed they delayed delivery multiple times. A new higher performance system will be available soon at a nearly same price of the VRX unit which will display simultaneously 3 threat aircraft information including the aircraft SQUWAK. This new device will also integrate an altitude alerter. Everything is packaged in a small box consuming only 1 watt compared to 5 watts minimum for the Trafficscope system. Feel free to contact me should you need more info. Regards, Thierry "Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote in message ... I cancelled my previous order for their TPAS 100 after I heard the terrible reviews from the newsgroups and some aviation publications. Through a Google search I was only able to find one guy's [really short] review which was positive. Anyone care to share what they heard or experienced with the TrafficScope? Marco Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Hello,
A new higher performance unit will be available from end of October.(R5) Price will compare to the TrafficScope VRX unit for functionalities close to the Ryan 8800 which sells at 6500 USD. It will display SIMULTANEOUSLY up to 3 threat aircrafts information including SQUWAK (not provided by the trafficscope unit), altitude (absolute MSL or relative to your altitude) and estimated distance. Horizontal range is programmable up to 10 Nm and vertical up to Unlimited. The unit works airborne or on the ground to monitor traffic around. It's amazing to actually see a commercial jet above and watch its squawk, altitude and distance displayed on the unit. Our unit consumes only 1 watt compared to 5 to 12 watts for the other. We integrated in the same box an altitude alerter to track your cruise altitude. FREE To be completely fair you should know that I own the new company who developped this system. Those who are interested could contact me at Regards, Terry ProXalert is a trademark. TrafficScope is a trademark of Surecheck (c) ps: Have a look at www.proxalert.com (Prototype site under construction ...) "Marco Leon" mleon(at)optonline.net wrote in message ... Thanks. The consensus is that the Monroy was better than the Surecheck TPAS. I wouls be curious to see if the Monroy still holds up to the Traffic Scope. Be sure to post a review if you ever get a chance to fly with the new SureCheck box. Marco "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Marco, We have the Monroy ATD200 in our Tobago - works great! However, the new generation Surecheck units (something vr) look interesting. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services ---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY ** ---------------------------------------------------------- http://www.usenet.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The
Monroy doesn't account for altitude, so when you have a 737 flying overhead thousands of feet up the Monroy would be screaming bloody murder. I think they mention altitude on their web, but in talking to them and using it, they try to rely on somehow the signal being blocked to give only aircraft within an altitude band. I never saw this "blockage" take place. Hi All: The ATD-200, when working properly, should account for altitude. But we had this problem too. We've been flying an ATD-200 since just before 9/11. (Good timing, huh.) For the first two years, we had the same squawk some in this thread are having - that the unit showed no altitude discrimination. We fly out of a satellite airport near Phoenix, and on flights that paralleled Phx approach/departure corridors, the ATD would continually cry "Wolf" to the point of being virtually useless. (We set it to alarm in the "Near" mode, so it should only squawk if a target is within a mile or two.) It would constantly squawk air transports that were clearly five or six thousand feet higher than us. That fosters a bad psychological habit. You begin to "tune out" the warning, since you know you'll never spot the traffic. It wasn't clear what it was squawking until a flight on a dark night over no man's land, where only air transports dare to fly and you can more easily see who's around. I talked to Jose' about this, and he said the unit was supposed to look for the LSB (Least Significant Bit) info in a target's Mode C altitude info, and only show threats within 2500' of our Mode C report. Clearly, the unit wasn't doing this. So I sent the unit to Jose' for bench checking. Turn around was quick (like, one day), no charge (except for shipping to him) and when it came back, it was like a whole different unit. It definitely is discriminating in altitude now, and when the ATD squawks, you'd better be looking, because there is ***definitely*** someone out there within eyeshot. For those whose units are alerting on every aircraft out there, you might wish to call Jose' about having the unit revised to the latest mod level. He has a generous warranty, and you're probably still covered. Hope this helps, Mike Palmer Excellence in Ergonomics |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
(MikeremlaP) wrote in
: The ATD-200, when working properly, should account for altitude. But we had this problem too.... So I sent the unit to Jose' for bench checking. Turn around was quick ...It definitely is discriminating in altitude now, and when the ATD squawks, you'd better be looking, because there is ***definitely*** someone out there within eyeshot. There is nothing in the ATD-200 to "account" for altitude. It does not even have the capability to decode the transponder signal, so it knows neither your altitude nor that of any other signal it receives. What was "done" at the shop was to simply turn down the gain, so that it is no longer as sensitive as it was. Your unit now won't see signals from as far away, both vertical and horizontal. [Which is why, as you say, it is less prone to false alarms also.] Notice sometime that if you turn off Mode-C on your own transponder, it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the ATD (except in those cases where it is warning of a reflection of your own signal anyway). It does not know, or care, about either your altitude or the altitude of any traffic. Having said all that, please understand that I am NOT recommending against the unit. It does what it is capable of, fairly well, and at a moderate price. Yes, it will sometimes warn of things like chicken coops on the ground, and it will sometimes warn of jets 20K above, and it will sometimes NOT warn of nearby aircraft until after they have passed (an external antenna will help with that problem). But it will also usually warn of the guy you didn't know was there and hence weren't really looking for. And as they say, one mid-air collision can ruin your whole day. jmk ----------------------------------------------- James M. Knox TriSoft ph 512-385-0316 1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331 Austin, Tx 78721 ----------------------------------------------- |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Howdy:
There is nothing in the ATD-200 to "account" for altitude. It does not even have the capability to decode the transponder signal, so it knows neither your altitude nor that of any other signal it receives. I haven't taken ours apart, but I've heard the same from another guy who took his apart - no detector, correct? Nevertheless, here's what Jose' wrote me last year - +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hi Mike The ATD-200 uses two schemes for altitude discrimination: signal aperture ratio and Mode C LSB comparison. The signal aperture ratio is the dominant factor for traffic with no Mode C. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If I understand him correctly (from this and other correspondence) he IS somehow detecting altitude info and the unit is supposed to ignore hits above/below 2500' of your altitude. I noticed after our unit came back from being revised that the SUPR LED often lights up a lot in the Phoenix area, but no Traffic Alert. I took that to mean the unit was picking up the Air Transports as it used to, but now "suppressing" their Traffic Alert since they were out of bounds based on Mode C info. I can try your test and test my theory by turning off our Mode C and seeing if suddenly I start getting Traffic Alerts on everyone. Hope this helps, Mike Palmer Excellence in Ergonomics |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
MikeremlaP,
the SUPR LED often lights up a lot in the Phoenix area, Hmm. The SUPR light comes on with signals from your own aircraft. Could it be that your DME has contact to a ground station in the PHX area and that's the reason for SUPR? DME and XPDR use similar frequencies, and the DME will trigger the SUPR light. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Approach Plates on PDA (PIREP) | Stan Prevost | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | December 18th 04 04:21 AM |
Cessna 182T w. G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 63 | July 22nd 04 07:06 PM |
Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep | C J Campbell | Instrument Flight Rules | 117 | July 22nd 04 05:40 PM |
SWRFI Pirep.. (long) | Dave S | Home Built | 20 | May 21st 04 03:02 PM |
PIREP: 2I3 (Rough River State Park, Falls of Rough, KY) | Kyler Laird | General Aviation | 0 | March 1st 04 12:11 AM |