Who has bought a new Garmin 396?
Paul kgyy
I've had the AnywhereMap system for a year now and find the system has
been prone to losing the XM weather.
I'd like to hear from 396 users how reliable the weather link has been,
particular from people that don't fly regularly.
Dan Luke
"Paul kgyy" wrote:
> I'd like to hear from 396 users how reliable the weather link has been,
> particular from people that don't fly regularly.
XM receivers will lose the service authorization if not used regularly. It
times out.
As to losing satellite lock, I have not had this happen in nearly two years
of using a WxWorx receiver and antenna connected to a notebook pc. I have
ordered a 396 but don't have it yet.
The Garmin 396 uses a "smart" antenna, i.e. a combination receiver/antenna.
As are you, I am anxious to see how well this will work. I plan to velcro it
on the glare shield where my Xm antenna is now.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM
john smith
> XM receivers will lose the service authorization if not used regularly. It
> times out.
I stopped by the XM booth at AirVenture and inquired about this.
The rep explained that it was their problem and that it has been fixed
and should not continue to happen.
Newps
john smith wrote:
Must have been the wx receivers that do this. I have four XM radio
receivers and they've never done this.
Paul kgyy
Gig 601XL Builder
"Newps" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3N6dnfFk4ty...@bresnan.com...
Where are those 4 receivers. If they are factory auto mounted they will
always get signal if the antenna can see the satellite. Same goes for the
boom box if it is connected to AC power.
Dan Luke
"Paul kgyy" wrote:
> Well, it just happened to me 2 days ago :-(
Aw, nuts! I was about to reply "Yay!" to John Smith's post.
How long had your receiver been off?
They *really* need to fix this.
Jay Honeck
Until Garmin addresses the poor resolution of the 396's color screen, I
wouldn't consider buying it.
I did, however, purchase the Lowrance 2000C color GPS to replace our
old Airmap 300. It's not as nice as our AvMap (which still occupies
the pilot's yoke), but Lowrance FINALLY saw the error of their ways and
issued us a $225 instant rebate for our old unit.
(For those who don't know, Lowrance stopped supporting the 300 just two
years after we bought it. When it stopped recognizing the airport
database, and reverted to a "raw" GPS, Lowrance refused to fix it, and
refused to give us anything toward the purchase of a different unit.
At OSH '05 they finally "made it right"...)
Applying that rebate against a show-special price of $695 ($300 under
list), we just couldn't pass the 2000C by.
It's got a much bigger and higher resolution screen than the Garmin,
and would be perfect for XM weather. (And the even better AvMap would
be awesome with weather.) Unfortunately, Garmin has beat 'em both to
it...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56992
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Dan Luke
> Until Garmin addresses the poor resolution of the 396's color screen,
> I
> wouldn't consider buying it.
You gotta be kidding, Jay. That's like not buying a prime steak because
you don't like the plate they serve it on. Anyhow, 320 x 480 ain't that
bad on a unit like this--what's higher resolution gonna *really* give
you besides higher cost?
Did you go to one of the 396 intro sessions at OSH? Maybe I'm
prejudiced because I fly in the land of endless thunderstorms, but to me
this thing is beyond awesome. What else has all the following in one
compact box?
o Li-Ion battery rechargeble from ship's power
o Synthetic panel
o Terrain & obstacles
o V-NAV
o Approaches
o Airport data
o Flight recorder
o W & B calculator
o E6B
o Data exchange with Garmin panel mounts
o NEXRAD, animated
o Lightning
o TFRs
o Graphical METARs
o TAFs
o Satellite view (cloud cover)
o XM Radio tuner & audio output
o Auto and marine modes that do all kinds of cool things
o All the usual GPS moving map stuff
o All the usual GPS route stuff
o A lot of stuff I'm forgetting
Yeah, I'd like a little larger screen, but other than that, this thing
is exactly what I wanted in a portable aviation GPS. Why wait to have
all these great tools right at my fingertips? When they come out with a
cooler one, I'll trade the 396 in to JA Air Center or Gulf Coast
Avionics like I've done with all my previous Garmins.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
Bob Fry
DL> When they come out with a cooler one, I'll trade
DL> the 396 in to JA Air Center or Gulf Coast Avionics like I've
DL> done with all my previous Garmins.
Dan, could you explain this further?
Morgans
"Dan Luke" <c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote
> As to losing satellite lock, I have not had this happen in nearly two
years
> of using a WxWorx receiver and antenna connected to a notebook pc. I have
> ordered a 396 but don't have it yet.
A heads up for anyone using an XM antenna.
Be careful with the wire where it goes into the plug on the XM antenna. The
wire is fine, and the strain relief is not so great. It will lose satellite
lock (or so it will appear) if the wire is an open connection.
--
Jim in NC
Dan Luke
"Bob Fry" wrote:
> DL> When they come out with a cooler one, I'll trade
> DL> the 396 in to JA Air Center or Gulf Coast Avionics like I've
> DL> done with all my previous Garmins.
>
> Dan, could you explain this further?
The mail order places will give you several hundred dollars trade-in on
a recent model Garmin GPS when you buy a newer one. Someone posted that
JA Air Center is giving $1,000 for 296's traded for 396's.
Jay Honeck
> you don't like the plate they serve it on.
Well, not exactly.
Although I was truly impressed with the major step forward Garmin has taken
(it's about time, BTW!), I was appalled at how pixilated the weather
appeared on the 396. Small thunderstorm cells appeared to cover entire
counties (or bigger), simply because they were depicted with big squares
instead of being able to take advantage of a higher resolution screen.
Now perhaps that's an XM thing, and not a Garmin thing -- but either way I'm
not spending thousands on such a crude depiction of the weather.
Within a year or two, someone will offer a much more usable tool, hopefully
on a bigger screen, probably for much less $$ -- and then I'll be glad to
add portable weather to the cockpit.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
Morgans
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@NOSPAMmchsi.com> wrote
> Within a year or two, someone will offer a much more usable tool,
hopefully
> on a bigger screen, probably for much less $$ -- and then I'll be glad to
> add portable weather to the cockpit.
I'm with you, on this one. The competition will respond.
My guess is that Sirius satellite radio will come out with a data link, and
offer it a bit more freely to *many* users and platforms, for a fee, of
course.
--
Jim in NC
Jonathan Goodish
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@NOSPAMmchsi.com> wrote:
> Although I was truly impressed with the major step forward Garmin has taken
> (it's about time, BTW!), I was appalled at how pixilated the weather
> appeared on the 396. Small thunderstorm cells appeared to cover entire
> counties (or bigger), simply because they were depicted with big squares
> instead of being able to take advantage of a higher resolution screen.
The weather pixelation is due to the weather data being pixelated, not
due to the display. Close-in zooms on any product that I've seen have
had pixelated weather. I believe software like WxWorx smooths the
edges, but the displayed data is still the same. This is a limitation
of the NEXRAD data, so you get the same information from any NEXRAD
radar site for base reflectivity--and composite reflectivity is worse.
JKG
Paul kgyy
Dave Butler
> 2 weeks
huh?
Allen
"Dave Butler" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:1123596289.444191@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Paul kgyy wrote:
>> 2 weeks
>
> huh?
Dan asked Paul "How long had your receiver been off?"
Paul succinctly replied "2 weeks"
allen
Newps
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Where are those 4 receivers.
One in each car, which are parked in the garage when not in use. A
third goes between the bedroom and the plane. The fourth is up at work
in the tower for all of us to enjoy. That radio probably plays about 20
hours per day every day and has for the last year plus.
Gig 601XL Builder
Ok, the one in the tower is obviously getting all the authorization packets
so it isn't an issue. I assume you drive each of the cars at least once
every week or so? If so they are getting their authorization packets.
That leaves the one that goes between the bedroom and the plane. Is AC power
going to it when it is in the bedroom and can the antenna see the satellite?
If so, even if it is turned off it is getting the authorization packets.
Newps
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> That leaves the one that goes between the bedroom and the plane. Is AC power
> going to it when it is in the bedroom and can the antenna see the satellite?
> If so, even if it is turned off it is getting the authorization packets.
>
It is always connected to AC in the bedroom and the antenna looks thru
about 3 walls, the ceiling and the roof. Always gets three bars.
>
Dan Luke
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> I was appalled at how pixilated the weather appeared on the 396. Small
> thunderstorm cells appeared to cover entire counties (or bigger), simply
> because they were depicted with big squares instead of being able to take
> advantage of a higher resolution screen.
You're exaggerating. The resolution is 2km, and it's due to the NEXRAD's
limits, not Garmins.
http://www.cami.jccbi.gov/aam-400A/Abstracts/2004/FULL%20TEXT/0405.pdf
Anyway, in actual operational use it's plenty fine enough.
> Now perhaps that's an XM thing, and not a Garmin thing -- but either way
> I'm not spending thousands on such a crude depiction of the weather.
I'd hardly call something "crude" that accurately depicts a shower so small
you can see all the way through it when you look out the window. Until
you've flown with WxWorx, you just don't know what a superb tool it is.
> Within a year or two, someone will offer a much more usable tool, hopefully
> on a bigger screen, probably for much less $$ -- and then I'll be glad to
> add portable weather to the cockpit.
Much more usable? In what way?
Bigger screen? That would be nice if I don't have to strap the damned thing
to my leg. It's got to fit on the yoke without blocking the HI or I don't
want it.
Go ahead and wait if you want to, but here in Thunderstorm Alley I ain't
flying without it a day longer than necessary. I can't wait for mine to get
here so I can get rid of my notebook pc setup.
Dave Butler
> Go ahead and wait if you want to, but here in Thunderstorm Alley I ain't
> flying without it a day longer than necessary. I can't wait for mine to get
> here so I can get rid of my notebook pc setup.
I'm with you, Dan. JA Air says I'm number 91 on their order list, I ordered July
11, and they say they will ship this week. So far no charges on my credit card,
so they haven't shipped yet.
Gig 601XL Builder
That's why you have never lost the authorization. They are all getting the
authorization packets.
Dan Luke
"Morgans" wrote:
> I'm with you, on this one. The competition will respond.
When? They seem to be falling farther and farther behind. Garmin is getting
too dominant in this market. They're doing it with products that kick butt,
but they're starting to get a Microsoft attitude, at least WRT pricing.
> My guess is that Sirius satellite radio will come out with a data link, and
> offer it a bit more freely to *many* users and platforms, for a fee, of
> course.
I hope so. WxWorx is getting far too dominant in their market, too.
Dan Luke
"Dave Butler" wrote:
I don't know where I am on Gulf Coast Avionics' list; I'm scared to ask.
When I ordered mine the week before OSH, the guy said "early September."
Gig 601XL Builder
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:uC4Ke.3876$_t.1642@okepread01...
P.S.
I've had a ton of trouble getting reception that good with my boom box. I've
had it not work through one exterior wall. For the house I ended up just
getting the home base mount and running an antenna outside. I moved the
boombox to the hanger and mounted the antenna outside there as well.
Jay Honeck
> limits, not Garmins.
Well, that's even more disappointing, since it's a flaw that can't be
fixed by moving the service to a better platform than the 396.
> > Now perhaps that's an XM thing, and not a Garmin thing -- but either way
> > I'm not spending thousands on such a crude depiction of the weather.
>
> I'd hardly call something "crude" that accurately depicts a shower so small
> you can see all the way through it when you look out the window. Until
> you've flown with WxWorx, you just don't know what a superb tool it is.
That would be very cool, indeed!
> Bigger screen? That would be nice if I don't have to strap the damned thing
> to my leg. It's got to fit on the yoke without blocking the HI or I don't
> want it.
Both the AvMap and the Airmap 2000c are yoke-mounted. Either platform
would allow a better depiction than the little 396.
> Go ahead and wait if you want to, but here in Thunderstorm Alley I ain't
> flying without it a day longer than necessary. I can't wait for mine to get
> here so I can get rid of my notebook pc setup.
I truly felt that way before OSH. Playing with the unit convinced me
to wait.
john smith
> The weather pixelation is due to the weather data being pixelated, not
> due to the display. Close-in zooms on any product that I've seen have
> had pixelated weather. I believe software like WxWorx smooths the
> edges, but the displayed data is still the same. This is a limitation
> of the NEXRAD data, so you get the same information from any NEXRAD
> radar site for base reflectivity--and composite reflectivity is worse.
I think the Wx data is transmitted at low resolution to save bandwidth
and reception time, hence the gross pixilation and poor resolution in
close in zoom mode.
Does the wx data have a timestamp so you can determine how old it is?
Jonathan Goodish
I do not believe that the data is transmitted at a lower resolution. It
is what it is. Base reflectivity is 1km, composite reflectivity is 2km,
whether you view it over the Internet at home or through a display with
XM downlink.
I am not sure whether the data is time stamped or not. I believe that
WxWorx (the XM weather provider) uses base reflectivity for NEXRAD
precip image, so that is 5 mins old. Most devices will start an
internal clock when they receive the update. I have found it to be
pretty accurate.
JKG
Jonathan Goodish
"Jay Honeck" <jjho...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > You're exaggerating. The resolution is 2km, and it's due to the NEXRAD's
> > limits, not Garmins.
>
> Well, that's even more disappointing, since it's a flaw that can't be
> fixed by moving the service to a better platform than the 396.
The point is that the "flqw" exists everywhere: on the radar pictures
from television, the Internet, and the WxWorx XM feed. The XM feed is
no worse than the data that is displayed anywhere else, but on the
television or Internet you are typically zoomed out on much larger
area, so the weather appears less pixelated than when you zoom in close
on the portable weather devices.
> > Bigger screen? That would be nice if I don't have to strap the damned thing
> > to my leg. It's got to fit on the yoke without blocking the HI or I don't
> > want it.
>
> Both the AvMap and the Airmap 2000c are yoke-mounted. Either platform
> would allow a better depiction than the little 396.
The screen on the AvMap is very nice, and I believe that the AvMap does
have better resolution. However, the 2000c does not unless Lowrance has
changed it recently. In any case, neither one of them would change the
pixelation of the weather unless they attempted to fill in the gaps in
the data on their own, and I'm not sure that would be of any practical
importance.
For a VFR pilot, I think that weather uplink is probably not such a big
deal. It would probably help you because you seem to do a lot of long
trips, but the bottom line is that you're always able to look out the
window. For folks flying IFR, weather uplink is a more important tool.
JKG
Dan Luke
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
>> > You're exaggerating. The resolution is 2km, and it's due to the
>> > NEXRAD's
>> > limits, not Garmins.
>>
>> Well, that's even more disappointing, since it's a flaw that can't be
>> fixed by moving the service to a better platform than the 396.
>
> from television, the Internet, and the WxWorx XM feed. The XM feed is
> no worse than the data that is displayed anywhere else, but on the
> television or Internet you are typically zoomed out on much larger
> area, so the weather appears less pixelated than when you zoom in close
> on the portable weather devices.
Yes, it's a non issue. Jay is fixating on something that has nothing to do
with the delivery platform and does not matter, practically speaking, anyway.
[snip]
> For a VFR pilot, I think that weather uplink is probably not such a big
> deal.
It is if you fly much VFR x-country in the southern U. S.
> It would probably help you because you seem to do a lot of long
> trips, but the bottom line is that you're always able to look out the
> window. For folks flying IFR, weather uplink is a more important tool.
Well, the METARs, TAFs, etc. are very useful, but when t'storms are abundant,
I avoid flying IFR if possible. In most light aircraft, it's better to be
below the bases where you can see what's coming, NEXRAD or no NEXRAD. Being
in IMC with a bunch of imbedded boomers around is not my idea of fun.
Jonathan Goodish
"Dan Luke" <c17...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
> > It would probably help you because you seem to do a lot of long
> > trips, but the bottom line is that you're always able to look out the
> > window. For folks flying IFR, weather uplink is a more important tool.
>
> Well, the METARs, TAFs, etc. are very useful, but when t'storms are abundant,
> I avoid flying IFR if possible. In most light aircraft, it's better to be
> below the bases where you can see what's coming, NEXRAD or no NEXRAD. Being
> in IMC with a bunch of imbedded boomers around is not my idea of fun.
I think for the VFR pilot in particular, a Stormscope/StrikeFinder is a
much better tool than weather uplink. The lightning data that XM
delivers is no where close to accurate many times when compared with my
StrikeFinder. Usually, the StrikeFinder paints large areas of lightning
where the XM feed shows a much smaller area, or sometimes the XM feed
doesn't show lightning at all for some areas, while showing lightning
for others. I would not fly with the XM feed as a reliable source of
lightning information for thunderstorm avoidance.
JKG
Maule Driver
know) suggests otherwise - i.e. downlinked Nexrad is a great tool VFR or
IFR.
For my operations, the key to flying in thunderstorm conditions is to
remain visual. But looking out the window just gives you a detailed but
heavily attenuated view of storms. You can't look in them and you
can't look thru them. Nexrad gives you high energy radar eyes.
I like to stay high among the tops - 7 to 10 thousand is about optimal
for the Maule and I. I file IFR but stay VMC. I look at the storms and
calibrate what I saw with Nexrad. That allows me to turn the right
corners, choose the right gaps and generally plot the best route. The
IFR clearance let's me penetrate the the cloud crotches where I can see
blue on the other side but where getting over the crotch may require a
climb that would take too long to make.
Combining Nexrad with ATC vectors is great too. Instead of just
following their suggestions, you can assess what they say, with what
you see out the window and what you see on your Nexrad display. That's
about as good as it gets.
Flying VFR/VMC around thunderstorms is a necessary evil in the SE US if
you want to use your a/c for travel. Penetrating storms is insane. And
flying in IMC with embedded storms will drive you insane - Nexrad or no
Nexrad. Just not recommended.
Jay's comments notwithstanding, Nexrad on the 396 will be fantastic! I
can say this with confidence after using CB where Nexrad images were in
B&W, displayed on a Palm IV, 30 to 45 mins old, and not integrated with
any GPS. That's technology from the last century!! And it worked
great. This will be super. No need to wait. Mine is scheduled for
delivery on 8/16. We'll see.
Jonathan Goodish
Maule Driver <MX7180...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Flying VFR/VMC around thunderstorms is a necessary evil in the SE US if
> you want to use your a/c for travel. Penetrating storms is insane. And
> flying in IMC with embedded storms will drive you insane - Nexrad or no
> Nexrad. Just not recommended.
I have found the StrikeFinder to be a much better thunderstorm avoidance
tool, and have flown quite a bit in the SE US with just the
StrikeFinder. NEXRAD is nice and is helpful, but no where near as
helpful as a sferics device for avoidance, in my opinion.
JKG
Dan Luke
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
> I have found the StrikeFinder to be a much better thunderstorm
> avoidance
> tool, and have flown quite a bit in the SE US with just the
> StrikeFinder. NEXRAD is nice and is helpful, but no where near as
> helpful as a sferics device for avoidance, in my opinion.
I'm just the opposite: no way I'd take a spark detector over WxWorx.
The last 2 years it has been so good that I abandoned the idea of
getting a Stormscope--just don't have any need for one.
Bob Fry
weather. Only thing left to add is realtime traffic info.
Dan Luke
"Bob Fry" wrote:
> Color moving map, terrain/obstacle data, and now (near) realtime
> weather. Only thing left to add is realtime traffic info.
From Garmin's site:
"[The 396] continues to reduce pilot workload by displaying Traffic
Information Service (TIS) data when interfaced to the GTX 330, and can
channel frequencies with the touch of a button when interfaced to the
SL30 nav/comm radio."
Maule Driver
buying that it is superior to Nexrad. Just doesn't compute. But maybe
one day someone will give me a ride and a demo.
OTOH, I'll bet the market will speak clearly over the next 3 years.
Nexrad will rule and sferics will be gone.
However, my bias may be based more on style of flight than operational
ignorance. In my little flivver, we rarely have a hard time avoiding
TStorms. We can see them, assess them from a distance and not go there.
We never feel a need to go up, give them a bump, take their
temperature, or determine their sex. We no longer like to fly under
them either. What I do long for is the best route around them. A
strategy to follow as I turn along the valley of Cu. That's what we got
from our limited experience with Nexrad.
I feel like a kid on Christmas eve! I'm going NC to FL for labor day
and should have the new toy by then. And I just tossed by Palm IV which
must be the most obsolete communicating device in my archive of the
arcane (do acoustic couplers still work?).
Maule Driver
jmk
buying that it is superior to Nexrad. Just doesn't compute. But maybe
one day someone will give me a ride and a demo. >>
Any time (and lately, no real problem finding TRW+ around here).
The problem with radar is that it shows rain - and flying through even
fairly heavy rain can be just fine, or it can be hell. You can't
necessarily tell just from the rain intensity.
The problem with a StormScope is that it ONLY shows lightning (and not
all of that). So while it is much more "realtime," in fact major
thunderstorms can pop up on there in places where there was nothing but
rain (i.e. nothing on the scope) only a minute before. And it is hard
to get the "big picture" when you are IMC and only have the SS.
I fly with only the SS right now, have for many years - lots of hard
IFR with good results. There have also been a couple of flights I
would have sold part of my soul for one glimpse at Nexrad. <G>
Dan Luke
"Maule Driver" wrote:
> Just need to upgrade that funky Narco.
I highly recommend Garmin's 327 xponder--I have one and love it.
However, the TIS data model, the 330, has become an iffy deal because the FAA
forgot to include TIS service in its upgrade spec's for some radar sites.
Since it wasn't in the spec's, Raytheon didn't price it and is not including
it. As a result, TIS won't work in my neighboring airspace of Pensacola,
among other places. If this hadn't happened, I would definitely upgrade to a
330, because I frequently fly that airspace and it is a buzzing hive of
military and civilian traffic.
The Garmin rep. at OSH said that the avionics manuf'rs have been screaming
about this oversight to the FAA, but it doesn't sound like their complaints
are getting anywhere.
Dan Luke
"Maule Driver" wrote:
> OTOH, I'll bet the market will speak clearly over the next 3 years. Nexrad
> will rule and sferics will be gone.
I agree. One of the spherics mfrs. is already running ads defending its
product against data linked weather. That's a sign to me they know they're
in trouble. Stormscope and Strikefinder are headed the way of Loran,
IMO--pretty good technology overcome by better.
Having said that, let me add that I would love to have a spherics device in
my panel for the real time data it would provide. But would I buy one now
and install it, knowing the utility I get from satellite weather? Heck, no.
Jonathan Goodish
Maule Driver <MX7180...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Well, I don't have any experience with sferics but I have a hard time
> buying that it is superior to Nexrad. Just doesn't compute. But maybe
> one day someone will give me a ride and a demo.
It seems that those folks in this thread who are are quick to dismiss
sferics also admit to not having a sferics device.
I've had a StrikeFinder for years, and have flown with XM weather for
about 4 months now. I can tell you that the StrikeFinder has identified
areas of convective activity that haven't yet appeared on the XM radar
image. The StrikeFinder is also substantially more accurate at
lightning depiction, which is important information in determining the
intensity of a storm. The lightning data provided via the XM link is
not nearly as reliable for use in detecting developing storm cells.
The radar image sent down by XM is base reflectivity at a single tilt,
most likely a low-angle return. This means that it does a good job of
measuring low-level precipitation (falling to the ground), but a poor
job of providing any information as to storm structure. The echo tops
product provides a much better picture of storm structure.
The fact that the StrikeFinder and similar devices are often able to
detect convective activity before it appears on a base reflectivity
image is significant, in my opinion. Also significant is the fact that
the sferics device provides real-time data, not data that is delayed 5
or 15 minutes. And there is no monthly subscription fee.
However, the sferics devices cost thousands of dollars to purchase and
have installed. They are very good at doing only one thing, and
providing you with one specific type of information. Based on my
experience, I think that the sferics devices are excellent
severe-weather avoidance devices. For the IFR pilot who may be flying
in or through weather, or for the long X-C VFR pilot, the additional
data available with weather uplink is hard to beat. However, it's
important to understand what you're getting and how to interpret it with
the weather uplink--the XM radar base reflectivity and lightning data
alone don't come close to telling the whole story.
JKG
Dan Luke
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote:
[snip good points]
> However, the sferics devices cost thousands of dollars to purchase and
> have installed. They are very good at doing only one thing, and
> providing you with one specific type of information.
Exactly so, and that's what's going to kill them. Love to have one, but
the marginal increment in capability it would give me over what I have
with WxWorx simply isn't worth the cost to me.
> Based on my
> experience, I think that the sferics devices are excellent
> severe-weather avoidance devices. For the IFR pilot who may be flying
> in or through weather, or for the long X-C VFR pilot, the additional
> data available with weather uplink is hard to beat. However, it's
> important to understand what you're getting and how to interpret it
> with
> the weather uplink--the XM radar base reflectivity and lightning data
> alone don't come close to telling the whole story.
Yup. But would you pay to have a Stormscope put in your plane today?
Jonathan Goodish
"Dan Luke" <c17...@pantsbellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Based on my
> > experience, I think that the sferics devices are excellent
> > severe-weather avoidance devices. For the IFR pilot who may be flying
> > in or through weather, or for the long X-C VFR pilot, the additional
> > data available with weather uplink is hard to beat. However, it's
> > important to understand what you're getting and how to interpret it
> > with
> > the weather uplink--the XM radar base reflectivity and lightning data
> > alone don't come close to telling the whole story.
>
> Yup. But would you pay to have a Stormscope put in your plane today?
If I didn't want to pay for the full $50/month weather uplink but I
wanted to fly in thunderstorm-prone areas, then yes. With full weather
uplink and some basic education on how to interpret the data, probably
not. There is a lot of information between the base reflectivity image
and echo tops, but there is NOT sufficient information in just the radar
image, in my opinion. To get echo tops, you have to spend the
$50/month. However, at $600/year you're still looking at a few years
time before you pay for the sferics device.
JKG
Victor J. Osborne, Jr.
I don't think they've fixed anything. Mine still goes offline if I don't
turn it on every few weeks. On a flight this past weekend, I had no
service. Rats. Call 1-800-BlondToTheRoots and they refresh. Now I have a
'Radio' on the return flight. Yes, I mean "basic' not 'Aviator'. Call
Huntsville. Will you people please call 1-800 people and tell them about
this great feature that is broadcast over their system called XM Weather.
Refresh my 'radio' for the Aviator I've paid for during last 3 years and
never seem to get on a reliable basis?
These people need some real competition so they can stop being like Garmin.
Rate mode off {|;-(
Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.
"Newps" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3N6dnfFk4ty...@bresnan.com...
>
>>
>>
>> I stopped by the XM booth at AirVenture and inquired about this.
>> The rep explained that it was their problem and that it has been fixed
>> and should not continue to happen.
Maule Driver
>>Yup. But would you pay to have a Stormscope put in your plane today?
>
> If I didn't want to pay for the full $50/month weather uplink but I
> wanted to fly in thunderstorm-prone areas, then yes. With full weather
> uplink and some basic education on how to interpret the data, probably
> not. There is a lot of information between the base reflectivity image
> and echo tops, but there is NOT sufficient information in just the radar
> image, in my opinion. To get echo tops, you have to spend the
> $50/month. However, at $600/year you're still looking at a few years
> time before you pay for the sferics device.
>
This feels like a classic "old school/new school" debate. On one hand,
those with experience in say, ADF/VOR/DME nav, clearly see the
continuing value in these device. On the other, those entering the
scene "AG" (After GPS) wonder why those devices exist (dual navs??).
Sferics apparently work quite well. Having never used one, I'll never
install one in the future. By the same token, I've yet to hear an
airline jockey fail to mention the desirability of on board radar to
augment downlinked weather. Well, go ahead and install the pod on your
P210. But the post downlink pilots won't be doing it in their
Cirrus/Lancairs.
I'm thinking that downlinked weather is the price/performance sweet spot
for piston GA - and will be for a few years.
Gig 601XL Builder
"Victor J. Osborne, Jr." <vosb...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:PuwKe.3120$vb3...@fe07.lga...
> Rate mode on-----
>
> I don't think they've fixed anything. Mine still goes offline if I don't
> turn it on every few weeks. On a flight this past weekend, I had no
> service. Rats. Call 1-800-BlondToTheRoots and they refresh. Now I have
> a 'Radio' on the return flight. Yes, I mean "basic' not 'Aviator'. Call
> Huntsville. Will you people please call 1-800 people and tell them about
> this great feature that is broadcast over their system called XM Weather.
> Refresh my 'radio' for the Aviator I've paid for during last 3 years and
> never seem to get on a reliable basis?
>
> These people need some real competition so they can stop being like
> Garmin.
> Rate mode off {|;-(
>
I'm curious Victor. Is your plane in a hanger on a tie-down?
Jonathan Goodish
Maule Driver <MX7180...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> > If I didn't want to pay for the full $50/month weather uplink but I
> > wanted to fly in thunderstorm-prone areas, then yes. With full weather
> > uplink and some basic education on how to interpret the data, probably
> > not. There is a lot of information between the base reflectivity image
> > and echo tops, but there is NOT sufficient information in just the radar
> > image, in my opinion. To get echo tops, you have to spend the
> > $50/month. However, at $600/year you're still looking at a few years
> > time before you pay for the sferics device.
> >
> Was that a yes or a no? Sounds like a no.
>
> This feels like a classic "old school/new school" debate. On one hand,
> those with experience in say, ADF/VOR/DME nav, clearly see the
> continuing value in these device. On the other, those entering the
> scene "AG" (After GPS) wonder why those devices exist (dual navs??).
That isn't what it is, please re-read my response. I answered "yes" and
I answered "no" depending on the type of flying that one would typically
do and my willingness to fork over $50/month to XM.
The weather data provided by XM _DOES NOT_ provide the same type of
information as a StrikeFinder, and it certainly doesn't provide
information in real time. Echo Tops, which can be used to judge storm
structure and identify cells before they appear on the reflectivity
radar image, only updates every 12 minutes via XM. Lightning only
updates every 15 minutes.
The bottom line is that the sferics and weather uplink are complementary
devices that provide complementary information. I'm not sure that I
need the $50/month subscription since I have a StrikeFinder; I can
probably get by using the $30/month subscription and combine the radar
data with the data from my StrikeFinder.
JKG