A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Products
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old April 15th 04, 07:49 AM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As I earlier stated, I am a friend-by-proxy of Surecheck for various
reasons ( I used both monroy and had lousy customer support and
trafficscope with good customer support as well as meeting with them
in California, and chose trafficscope because of the altitude backup
and customer support)

I was born in the night, but not last night, so I know people can be
anyone on the internet....that being said;

If you are who you say your are, if you saw traffic on both units,
which one would you have trusted more in terms of performance and
reliability?

Because my experience was that the Monroy jumped around between
relative altitude and actual, as well as range between 1 NM and 5 NM.
My experience with the trafficscope continues to be range within .03
NM of what ATC tells me and relative altitude being dead on.





"Jon S" wrote in message ...
Nope, not a guilty conscience, just curious. After all, you referred to an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.
Given that this thread started with a reference to my Aviation Consumer
article, I wondered whether this was another reference to that. Glad it
wasn't.

And yes, of course every publication has some bias. But as a writer it's
really not that hard to be aware of your own biases and write an unbiased
review, especially with the help of an editor whose job it is to keep you
honest.

JonS





"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Guilty conscious there?

I was referring to the Monroy re-seller Thomas Borchert, and the
"editors" of publications who do "reviews" but their intention is to
sell their line of avionics, like Eastern Avionics or Aviation-west,
etc.

The point is every publication or editor will have some bias, some
more obvious than others.



"Jon S" wrote in message

...
I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what

biases
we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on

the
Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking

for a
demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any

points
about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a

brief
phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on

use of
an external antenna.

The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the

manufacturers
were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these

phone
calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy

of
the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
would print something if we found significant differences).

So where's your problem?

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.

The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.



"Jon S" wrote in message

...
Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the

communication,
not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of

us
by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it,

but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any

help
from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours.

Obviously,
you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a

suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who

make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is

a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message

...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts

and
left
out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience

with
these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true,

people
would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
perceived
as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your

credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of

human
communication that anyone who works in any field of

communication
(writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful

facts
at
your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be

more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you

come
across
as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that

isn't
a
good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product,

that I
have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The

lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the

Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close

to a
ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and

with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are

therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as

well
as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but

also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy

"Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message

...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the

stick-and-ball
type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a

stick
and
ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

  #52  
Old April 22nd 04, 04:43 PM
TaxSrv
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"BHelman" wrote:
My experience with the trafficscope continues to be range within .03
NM of what ATC tells me and relative altitude being dead on.


All these "passive" devices rely upon received signal strength to
compute distance. Due to wide variability in what actually comes out
of the xponder antenna of general aviation aircraft, consistent .03 NM
accuracy, or even .3 NM, is physically impossible. ATC does not give
me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something new where you fly?
:-)

Fred F.

  #53  
Old April 23rd 04, 05:35 AM
BHelman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"physically impossible." How so? What technology has ever been
branded "physically impossible" which did not find a solution.

"ATC does not give me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something
new where you fly?"

They only give "less than a mile" or "2 miles" generally. If you ask
specifically, they can tell you within tenths, depending on their
technology being used.



"TaxSrv" wrote in message ...
"BHelman" wrote:
My experience with the trafficscope continues to be range within .03
NM of what ATC tells me and relative altitude being dead on.


All these "passive" devices rely upon received signal strength to
compute distance. Due to wide variability in what actually comes out
of the xponder antenna of general aviation aircraft, consistent .03 NM
accuracy, or even .3 NM, is physically impossible. ATC does not give
me advisories to 2 decimal places either; something new where you fly?
:-)

Fred F.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.