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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|