I would like to receive from the readerÂ’s feedback / experience with collision avoidance systems.
I have been looking at the following low cost collision avoidance systems ‘’Trafficscoop VRX’’ from Shurecheck, R5 from Proxalert and the ATD-300 from Monroy.
IÂ’m based in Europe and as such we have no use for data uplinks systems for the coming years
Please, provide me with your valued feedback on the performance of these or other units, so I might be able to take a balanced decision.
It might be worth a subscription to Aviation Consumer to check out the review they did last month of several of these systems. The preview is available here.
Hi All
I would like to receive from the readerÂ’s feedback / experience with collision avoidance systems.
I have been looking at the following low cost collision avoidance systems ‘’Trafficscoop VRX’’ from Shurecheck, R5 from Proxalert and the ATD-300 from Monroy.
IÂ’m based in Europe and as such we have no use for data uplinks systems for the coming years
Please, provide me with your valued feedback on the performance of these or other units, so I might be able to take a balanced decision.
Regards
Jaap Zondag
CirruShare BV ( N263CD & N264CD)
Do you need Mode S transponder in Europe, and as such is traffic data available to you ? Many of us use the new Garmin Transponder as an excellent way to monitor traffic. No additional boxes or wires.
I have the Monroy 300 ATD and am very satisfied. The unit is small, and is much less intrusive and blocks less of my view than the Surecheck. I had the last generation of the Surecheck TPAS, the unit worked well but was much larger than the Monroy. Bottom line both seem to work well and are good choices. The surecheck has a battery backup but is more expensive.
any comments on where to place these units for maximum efficiciency? Variable positions on the glareshield? Further toward the front of the glass canopy? Any difference between high and low wing plane relative to dashboard position? One of the units says to not get it too hot or it will malfunction and give false info(my glareshield gets a bit hot at times)
In Europe we will need Mode S for IFR filghts mid next year, however the data up-link capability will not become avaialbe in the comming yrs, thats why im interested in an intrim solution. ( R5 Porx allert, you see allert with x-ponder codes?)
You may be the only one who is happy with the Monroe 300. Several people I spoke with have had the same results with the 300. False alerts and altitude / milage skipping randomly around. I think for a few bucks more the trafficscope is worth the accuracy. From what I have heard the 300 has a lot of bugs that are still being worked out. As far as size, the Trafficscope is smaller in area than the 300, so I think you must be thinking of their previous device.
I assure you I am thinking of the ATD 300 of which I own. The Aviation Consumer Magazine stated both Monroy and Surecheck have improved both of their units from earlier generations but Aviation Consumer preferred the Monroy by a “razor thin” margin. My unit has worked flawlessly. There is a new player in the portable traffic avoidance race the Proalert which Aviation Consumer preferred over the Monroy and the Surecheck. They commented that while all of these units are useful they can miss traffic ahead and below.
I bough a trafficscope last year (right after they came out with the new model). The unit worked well for about 30 minutes, then locked up. Tried rebooting it - sometimes it would work again (mostly not). Sent it back - maybe I just got lucky with a bad one.
The trafficscope was much larger than the monroy 200 I had been using. The trafficscope LCD was much harder to read than the Monroy lighted bar.
While waiting for my skywatch to be upgraded at the factory (to rev G), I am using the Monroy 200 which works very well. It just gives you a signal strength of nearby transponders. The Monroy 300 is supposed to be the same size as the Monroy 200.
I assure you I am thinking of the ATD 300 of which I own. The Aviation Consumer Magazine stated both Monroy and Surecheck have improved both of their units from earlier generations but Aviation Consumer preferred the Monroy by a “razor thin” margin. My unit has worked flawlessly. There is a new player in the portable traffic avoidance race the Proalert which Aviation Consumer preferred over the Monroy and the Surecheck. They commented that while all of these units are useful they can miss traffic ahead and below.
Pertaining to size the Monroy is (2.75"W X 0.75’H X 5"D)
Surecheck(3.65’W X 2.O’H X 5.36’D)
So the Monroy is clearly smaller but I am glad you are happy the the TPAS. For others in the market there are now 3 choices Monroy , Surecheck and Proalert.
The problem is the Monroy is a cheap imitation of the trafficscope. The Monroy only hopes to gain altitude information from the transponder, whereas the trafficscope looks at both relative (with an internal altimeter) and by listening to the transponder. see the link ( http://www.surecheck.net/avionics/altimeter.html ) I have used both. The Monroy will skip around randomly in range and altitude. The monroy only shows traffic within +/- 2 miles where the trafficscope is +/- 0.3 miles. The difference in cost between the Monroy and the trafficscope is a unit which works (trafficscope), and a unit which is a flip-flop at best (monroy) IMHO
I bough a trafficscope last year (right after they came out with the new model). The unit worked well for about 30 minutes, then locked up. Tried rebooting it - sometimes it would work again (mostly not). Sent it back - maybe I just got lucky with a bad one.
The trafficscope was much larger than the monroy 200 I had been using. The trafficscope LCD was much harder to read than the Monroy lighted bar.
While waiting for my skywatch to be upgraded at the factory (to rev G), I am using the Monroy 200 which works very well. It just gives you a signal strength of nearby transponders. The Monroy 300 is supposed to be the same size as the Monroy 200.
Paul
SR 22 G2
Do either of these gizmos tell you the direction of the traffic or just that it’s ‘nearby’?
Do either of these gizmos tell you the direction of the traffic or just that it’s ‘nearby’?
Only that a plane is nearby - which can drive you crazy looking. But at least you are really working your eyes to the max.
If signal strength changes slowly, both of you are probably flying the roughly same direction. Fast changing strength will indicate the aircraft is headed for you.
It is useful (especially on a cross country), but nothing compares with the skywatch.
The problem is the Monroy is a cheap imitation of the trafficscope. The Monroy only hopes to gain altitude information from the transponder, whereas the trafficscope looks at both relative (with an internal altimeter) and by listening to the transponder. see the link ( http://www.surecheck.net/avionics/altimeter.html ) I have used both. The Monroy will skip around randomly in range and altitude. The monroy only shows traffic within +/- 2 miles where the trafficscope is +/- 0.3 miles. The difference in cost between the Monroy and the trafficscope is a unit which works (trafficscope), and a unit which is a flip-flop at best (monroy) IMHO
In reply to:
The problem is the Monroy is a cheap imitation of the trafficscope. The Monroy only hopes to gain altitude information from the transponder, whereas the trafficscope looks at both relative (with an internal altimeter) and by listening to the transponder. see the link ( http://www.surecheck.net/avionics/altimeter.html ) I have used both. The Monroy will skip around randomly in range and altitude. The monroy only shows traffic within +/- 2 miles where the trafficscope is +/- 0.3 miles. The difference in cost between the Monroy and the trafficscope is a unit which works (trafficscope), and a unit which is a flip-flop at best (monroy) IMHO
Fixdgear,
I am glad you like your Surecheck. I am happier with my choice. The Proxalert R5 is another good choice. I have no financial interest in either of these units. My user profile is available on the user list. Who are you? I apologize if I am incorrect but do you have a financial or other interest in this debate? Your comments and the fact that you have only 3 posts on this server and they all relate to portable traffic units of which you push the Surecheck is a tad suspicious. I am sure the Trafficscope is a good unit. It is just not my pick. Aviation Consumer had a good review of these units and preferred the Monroy over the Surecheck by a “razorthin margin” but in this months addition it feels the Proxalert R5 may be worth the extra money over the Monroy. Your detail in your posts is a little too passionate for an disinterested observer. Also Aviation Consumer took Surecheck to task for “Surechecks altered reality” but taking comments of their review out of context to make it look like “Trafficscope is the better choice”. The quote was on the Surecheck website and was taken out of context and did not reflect the articles conclusion.
You could also call someone like Eastern Avionics and try a trafficscope for 30 days or so. Or better yet ask them which one they have had more customer complaint or returns on. That is what I originally did. They said they have had a lot of returns on the Monroy for false alerts, yet said the trafficscope has had zero.