XM Weather - I'm Converted!

As I mentioned on another thread, I chucked my airline tickets today for a flight from Houston to Titusville, in favor of flying myself. The best part was that my co-workers showed up at the hotel an hour and a half after I did - and we left the office at the same time! (They spent 45 minutes sitting on the ground at Orlando, waiting for a gate....)

What made today's flight really interesting was a friend that loaned me his 396 with XM weather for the trip..."just so I could see what it was like..."

I'll tell you what - that XM weather is like crack cocaine! I am 100% addicted after one trip! I've flown with weather radar before, and even though you can see what is ahead, you never know for sure what is beyond...but with the entire country's radar picture available to you, this thing takes almost all of the "fearful unknowns" out of flying in the southeast during the summer.

When I left Houston, the only echoes on the coast was a weak blob over near Mobile. Sure enough, I watched this grow into a pretty nice cell between Mobile and Pensacola by the time I got there. Cruising along at 11.5K most of the way, I compared the view on the 396 with what I saw dead ahead. If I had been without the XM, I would have been on the horn to Flight Watch, and maybe even have landed short to get a live look at the radar. As it was, I just deviated a couple degrees left, and worked my way around the taller buildups, knowing that I wasn't going to run into a dead end, or bad stuff hiding beyond. That look "beyond" was priceless.

I had planned a fuel stop about halfway, and if I had dropped down from altitude near Mobile, I probably would have had a tough time getting back up and out of the building stuff. But since I could see that the weather beyond Pensacola was free of echoes, I was confident in running farther, staying up high, sipping 8.0 gph and truing 175 knots. I finally landed in Cross City, FL, with 1:40 left in the tanks (according to the EFIS), an hour short of Titusville. I could have gone non-stop, but I don't like to push the reserves when I haven't flown the route before.

Bottom line - the stress reduction that came from the increased situational awareness was tangible - a flight that would have been full of unknowns with towering cumulus filling the horizon became routine! Of all the neat toys I have put into the Valkyrie, I can't think of many that add as much to the overall capability as realtime weatehr. The nicest thing is that I can add this capability to my GRT EFIS for only $1500...and you can bet my order is going in as soon as I get back!

Paul

Paul,

Great report. I heard the same kind of description from a friend of mine who used one on the way to Oshkosh this year. I just hate the idea of 50 bucks a month subscription fee. But I guess if you are flying a lot of cross-country, it might be worth it.

Of course I once said I would never have an autopilot in my airplane... And then I flew with one... Now there's no way I'll leave that out.

My experience and thoughts about having the onboard weather are the same as Paul's- this will truly change my entire cross country trip experience. I too borrowed a friend's 396 for an 800 nm cross country- twice- was extremely impressed, and wondered about how I would ever do without it.

I'm currently trying to figure out whether I should buy the Garmin 496- doubt that I'll spring for the extra $$. The only other hesitancy I have is related to the subscription- whether to pay for the $50/month version, when I believe that I'll only need the winds aloft feature (not available on the $25/month version). Guess for the typical 2.5 - 3 hour flights that I make, the wind forecast shouldn't change that much from my pre-flight check of winds.

ufcpa said:

I'm currently trying to figure out whether I should buy the Garmin 496- doubt that I'll spring for the extra $$. The only other hesitancy I have is related to the subscription- whether to pay for the $50/month version, when I believe that I'll only need the winds aloft feature (not available on the $25/month version). Guess for the typical 2.5 - 3 hour flights that I make, the wind forecast shouldn't change that much from my pre-flight check of winds.

Click to expand...

Maybe to help with the decision process. I've noticed that winds aloft is probably the least updated piece of info on XM. Sometimes on a 2 hour flight, I'll only get a winds aloft update (no wind info prior), after about an hoursor more into the flight. Then it only lasts for about 30 mins and is gone again until the next update.

While I have used it, and it has helped, for the most part I don't even bother anymore, it just seems the update interval on winds aloft is down the priority scheme with XM.

YMMV,

What are the differences between $25 and $50 subscriptions? Is it only the winds aloft? The GRT EFIS has a wind speed and direction vector on the display so it's easy to determine what the winds are doing.

I'm also on the fence about upgrading my GRT to include weather but don't need another "aviation-related" monthly bill coming in, if you know what I mean.

f1rocket said:

What are the differences between $25 and $50 subscriptions? Is it only the winds aloft? The GRT EFIS has a wind speed and direction vector on the display so it's easy to determine what the winds are doing.

I'm also on the fence about upgrading my GRT to include weather but don't need another "aviation-related" monthly bill coming in, if you know what I mean.

Click to expand...

Randy, if you go to the XM weather site (just google it), there is a matrix of the difference. There are some, more than just the winds. Freezing level for example.

While you are correct about the wind vector. I use winds aloft to determine if a different altitude would provide faster flight.

For example. I needed better fuel economy while on a non-stop from Atlanta to OSH this year in my 182. 6K wasn't gonna do it, and winds were forecast much better at 9K once I got the update from XM. I was cleared to 8K and my ground speed increased by 10kts... Just as predicted ... Oh, btw, they are much better via XM than via FSS.

Here, I figured it would be just as easy for me to post the link..

http://www.xmradio.com/weather/aviation.html

Paul, you have a problem. You are a techno-junkie. Say it with me... "My name is Paul and I'm a techno-junkie." Very good. Just hang out here with us and we will try to get you past this really difficult time. I recommend going cold turkey.

Karl

I've been flying with XM weather for two years now, and the addiction took just one cross country. Knowing the precip picture is really, really nice. I have an AnywhereMap system, so I also get little icons by each airport with weather. The icons depict VFR/MVFR/IFR for both ceilings and vis, and they really tell you at a glance where to stay away from. As to the radar, it is infinitely easier to look at the moving map than it was to try to put together a mental image when the FSS guy is telling you something like "there is a band of returns from such and such, crossing into TN at about Somewheresville, etc."

This technology has really revolutionized light aircraft travel, IMO.

BTW, the Aviator Lite subscription is $29.99/month, not $25.

f1rocket said:

What are the differences between $25 and $50 subscriptions? Is it only the winds aloft? The GRT EFIS has a wind speed and direction vector on the display so it's easy to determine what the winds are doing...

Click to expand...

One of the additional items in the $50 suscription is lightning. I like the lightning information for several reasons, but the biggest is that radar is blanked in at least some mountain areas (personal experience) but the lightning will still show where the thunderstorms are.

What's the big deal?

I fly cross country quite a lot and there is no way I would pay anything like $100 per year for inflight weather display. If there are thunder storms in the area and I can't see them, I'm not flying there. The weather on a macro scale doesn't change that quickly that you can't use FSS, flight watch and personal observations to conduct a non-critical personal flight. If you are using this system to shave the margins you are probably increasing the risks not decreasing. If I had that kind of money I would be spending it of those nice electronic approach chart displays you talked about earlier. The price for the value of this in flight weather system is only for people that have really big expendable income margins. If I were in that situation I would probably stick it in and take a quriosity glance at it when I see some large build up off to the side of my flight path and I would use it like anything else available for inflight circuitous routing to get to my destination. I would pay $5 a month - maybe depending on the impact to my airplane systems and cockpit organization.

Bob Axsom

Thanks Alan.

It seems that every year I fly back from Oshkosh, I run into rain and storms either coming or going. I would find the radar images very helpful in navigating and finding a path around the stuff. I can see the value in having this, but I still have difficulty in justifying the expense.

Regarding disposable income Bob, that's a personal choice. If I really want this bad enough, I can always cancel HBO on my cable TV bill. Besides, now that The Sopranos is finishing up, there's not much there worth watching anyway.

Bob:

I do agree with you on the cost. I think the cost is a little overboard and I personally think they could increase their revenue by reducing the monthly subscription fee. I think every pilot can see some value in the service, but I'm not sure that everyone sees $29-$50/month value. The information XM is providing has already been paid for by the taxpayer. XM is simply getting the info from the National Weather Service, changing it to their format and forwarding it on to their subscribers. The infrastructure is already there (they use the same satellites as the music service), so that's not a cost consideration for them.

Hopefully the Sirius offering will add some good old fashioned competition to the mix and force XM to lower it's price.

Jamie said:

The information XM is providing has already been paid for by the taxpayer. XM is simply getting the info from the National Weather Service, changing it to their format and forwarding it on to their subscribers.

Click to expand...

Which is pretty much how Jeppesen rakes in tons of money a year selling database updates, if you think about it.

The cost will probably come down eventually. Early adopters tend to subsidize the rest of us. I recently bought an AnywhereMap system, and was reluctant to pay the $30/month, but I'm hoping that if they sell enough systems and/or get some competition the price may come down. Weather is one of my biggest concerns, so $30/mo, while spendy, does buy me some peace of mind. If it doesn't, I can always cancel the service and just use the AM for a back-up GPS, or put it in the car and get a GPS nav package.

XM fees

I do agree with you on the cost. I think the cost is a little overboard and I personally think they could increase their revenue by reducing the monthly subscription fee. I think every pilot can see some value in the service, but I'm not sure that everyone sees $29-$50/month value.

Click to expand...

What I'm hoping to see at some point is a "pay as you use it" business model. I have no idea how a system like that would be implemented, but I would happily consider a fee for only the times I use the service. Otherwise, the present monthly fee just doesn't fit my needs or aviation budget.

But I think XM weather will go down as one of the most revolutionary aviation innovations so far, one that we will take for granted in years to come.

While I really like the option of going with the GRT WX input there might be a cheaper way to skin this cat. If you look at the Garmin 376C you can get XM wx and satelite radio in the same way you can with the Garmin 396 but at a significant discount approx $820 vs the Garmin 396 for $2195. While it does not have aviation info, it does have topo maps etc. Great backup to the onboard GRT GPS while providing XM WX at a very reasonable price. It might even fit the 396 Gizmo and provide a NEMA output. Anyways it appears to be one way to get the initial costs down.

JMHO



http://www.thegpsstore.com/Detail-Garmin-GPSMAP-376C-XM-Satellite-Weather.asp

I was like Bob.....

Bob, be very careful not to let anyone loan you one of these things.....I felt the same way about it before I used one, and in one flight, I was addicted!

It certainly isn't a requirment to have the capability, but in terms of expanding one's situational awareness, I haven't seen a single technology that adds so much in one shot.

But I also see the point about having to pay a fee every month. However, I just realized I have been paying for too many minutes on my cell phone since my divorce (the Ex used a lot of minutes!), and if I cut that down to a reasonable amount, it pays for the monthly XM......

As Kahuna pointed out a couple of days ago when he reviewed the XM weatehr on the GRT one of the problems in an -8 is that unless you planned a 396/496 from teh start, there really isn't a good place to put it. I'm using this one on my lap, with three cords wrapped around the cockpit - not ideal. That's why I plan to integrate.

Paul

XM subscription

I spoke at length with XM at Oshkosh about this. I expressed my concern that many people only fly cross country's a few months a year and it doesn't make financial sense (not withstanding the functional value) to commit to a year then only use it for a while. The XM Rep said it is month to month but where you get nailed is a cancellation and hook up fees.

He said what to is subscribe then when you are done ask for a Seasonal suspension of service (may not be the exact terminology). When you are ready to go again you can get it started up with no charge. You can do this once per year. You then only pay for the months you actually use.

Next season, I'm going to get it hooked up to my 430 or possibly install a 496.

RV7Guy said:

I spoke at length with XM at Oshkosh about this. I expressed my concern that many people only fly cross country's a few months a year and it doesn't make financial sense (not withstanding the functional value) to commit to a year then only use it for a while. The XM Rep said it is month to month but where you get nailed is a cancellation and hook up fees.

He said what to is subscribe then when you are done ask for a Seasonal suspension of service (may not be the exact terminology). When you are ready to go again you can get it started up with no charge. You can do this once per year. You then only pay for the months you actually use.

Next season, I'm going to get it hooked up to my 430 or possibly install a 496.

Click to expand...

If you turn off and on more than one time a year, they will charge your for a re-activation charge... Ask me how I know... And I also spent a good bit of time discussing this with them at OSH.

XM,SIRIUS

I agree that XM weather is the best safety device to come around in a long time. XM and Sirius seems to be in rough weather there selves. Take a look at today's Wall Street Journal front page. What do you think?
GP

The best safety device

Well, hmmm, I thought the VHF Omni Range was pretty outstanding when we activated one at Shaw AFB. We still had our Low Frequence Radio Range 5 miles off the end of the runway and the High Power Beacon 10 miles out, all maintained by my old 2020th AACS Squadron when I was discharged in 1957. Many years later when I became a private pilot I still thought the VORs were great but I sweated the accuracy of my position reports using the VOR radial cross checks a sectional and plotter. When I installed the KNS 64 Distance Measuring Equipment the relief was tangible, no more flying the plane and juggling the position determination task at the same time, life was good! Then I got my first GPS receiver (Garmin GPS90 - I still have it and use it) - situation awareness became a reality. Overlaying terrane and weather are nice I'm sure but GPS itself is so great that it alone is enough to justify the space program. I can't believe I am going to get the same overwhelming sensation when and if I ever see a computer graphic display of weather information in flight (at night under certain conditions I might be willing to pay many times the monthly rate for one little peek). Now if they incorporate the graphic display of data from the Cloudsat spacecraft that was launched a few months ago I might have to re-think the situation.

Bob Axsom

Ironflight said:

.... since my divorce ....Paul

Click to expand...

Ahh.... Now I understand! Seriously, I saw all the "kids" playing with their new 396's and 496's at Oshkosh looking at the thunderstorms approaching and I was very impressed. Like someone mentioned - this real-time radar in the cockpit is as big a step ahead as GPS itself, IMVHO.

I kinda like Paul here, if you've seen it in action you will more than just want one in your cockpit for those long cross countries. I can't count the times I've landed after listening to FSS only to find out I could have diverted and easily flew around a buildup................pre IFR (those towers are easy to see up top). RV's are fast airplanes, we can get around a lot of stuff.

The new technology comes with a price, I'm afraid. Justifying that cost is a matter of balancing your aviation needs vs. wants.

The convenience of being able to see the wx layout on your entire route can make the difference on the success of the mission. We still don't have this capability in the airlines, but we (pilots) are trying to persuade managements to give this very valuable tool to us. It would certainly be nice....

In the meantime, we depend on our dispatchers for their eyes and ears. Some of them are great, and really keep you informed of what's ahead and possible alternate routes to get around the stuff. Others.... I picture with their heads on their desks snoozing!! ..because that's about how much good they are to us!

Depending on how you use your airplane, and why, can probably justify the high cost of these subscription services. I can tell you that while the database services are expensive, the cost for Jeppesen approach plate coverage is outrageous! The cost of an individual revision packet (every two weeks) at my airline is $20 per packet!! That's for each pilot to revise their individual manuals! That's business I guess.

So that's twice a month x 12 months a year x 7000 pilots! YIKES!! It's no wonder our airline (and others as well) want to go to the "electronic flight bag" where a modified laptop is your source for approach plates.

Justifying this stuff for an RV... It's easy to get hooked on this technology. If you use your airplane alot for cross country trips and you want or need reliability, then you can probably justify the costs. If you are like other folks, who generally like to chase $100 hamburgers on weekends or occasional trips somewhere, then you probably can't.

At least now these days, most if not all FBOs have some live wx depiction screens in their lobbys/pilot lounges. A good look at those pics can help make sound flight planning decisions before you even leave the ground.

396 with XM WX...and I LOVE IT!

Coming back from Virginia with the granddaughters last week, the XM Satellite Weather started painting some nasty storms developing between Chattanooga and Knoxville, so I made the decision to divert toward Nashville. It turned out to be a good decision...

Oh, did I say I was in my car? For the extra $24/month for both the airplane and car (you don't fly and drive at the same time, do you?) I think it's a bargain. I don't have a boat, nor the time to enjoy one, but if I did, I would use it in the boat. I believe the sonar input plugs into the same port as the XM antenna for the weather, so it may be an either/or on the weather versus sonar.

I will admit, however, that the array of cables can be annoying if not kept tidy. I have been using those Velcro tie wraps which help.

When I went to Oshkosh this year in the trusty C172, I used a borrowed 195 (aka the "brick"). The trip home was like going from "steam gauges" to EFIS compared to the trip up there.

Did I say I like XM Weather?

YMMV

Don

This can get emotional I guess

Airliners? I guess you got to go where you got to go but in RV flying that is not usually the case. If weather is BAD (thunderstorms) I do not fly IFR I need to see them visually and avoid them now! not try to negotiate survival over the radio. At the same time Scott Crossfield was making his fatal flight IFR I was flying to Asheville from Fayetteville, Arkansas. Then on to Winston-Salem, NC and later returning to Fayetteville over a period of a few days (visit the Biltmore Estate, shop for furniture, etc.). The out bound weather forecast was very demanding on flight planning. Instead of going the anticipated route I had to go down south to Chatanooga, TN for fuel then continue to Asheville, NC. There were clouds but nothing severe so I filed and flew IFR. The trip into Asheville could not be flown safely in the IFR system in my opinion but the weather looked good for visual circumnavigation flight. That worked fine but the direct or airway routes looked like they would take my little RV-6A and spit out the pieces. The IFR flight to Winston-Salem was routine except for the "maintain maximum forward speed to the runway I have a Falcon jet behind - 160kt - harassing final controller - failed glide slope indicator - ILS turned Localizer approach". Weather home required some careful planning also. Up into Kentucky then back down to Nashville then and easy IFR in VMC back to Fayetteville. I don't know what Scott Crossfield's equipment was but his last contact was reported to be a request for deviation due to weather. My position is that another display of the weather on a screen in the cockpit would not have helped me on this flight and if the weather is bad - don't go there.

Bob Axsom

The Strikefinder (or was it Stormscope?) people had an interesting seminar at OSH. They gave the pros and cons of both their lightning gear and XM weather. The thing to remember about XM composite radar is that it can take 8 to 12 minutes to go from the ground stations to the satellite to your 396. So if you're planning to dart through gaps you might want to keep that in mind. Also, the XM lightning feature only shows ground strikes so you're not going to know about cloud-to-cloud lightning or building cu's.

Bob Newhall
Boulder, CO

Why not rent your weather?

I have found this discussion about flying with weather in the cockpit to be very interesting, primarily because I have been looking at a startup business based renting the 396/496 on a weekly basis. After all, many of us GA type pilots only make one or two long distance trips a year, generally lasting a week or two in length. For those that fly long trips more often than that, you can (and should) justify the expense of having the capability built in.

It has been said several times in this thread that once you try it, you?ll like it. I have lent my 396 to several people that were flying cross-country and they didn?t think that they really wanted to take the extra equipment with them. Everyone has come back saying that it saved them at least a day on the trip and they all felt much safer because of a real sense of improved situational awareness when it came to the weather.

One of the interesting capabilities that has not been brought up is the ability to see TFRs. In the West, mostly because of the forest fires, we get pop-up TFRs all the time. But I have a friend that went to breakfast at nearby airport and almost busted a presidential (VP visiting a friend) TFR that was straight out from the departure end of the runway. He swears that it wasn?t there when they flew in less than an hour before.

So I really need your input; if you could get a fully equipped 396 with the current databases (~$80/month) and the Aviator (advanced) XM weather ($50/mo), would you be willing to rent one on a weekly basis for $175.00/week? Please contact me off-line ([email protected]) with you comments and thoughts because I really value and need your opinions. After all, you are the very people that this service would be most useful to. Let me reiterate that this is not a business at this time, only a concept that I?m pursuing.

It's not just NEXRAD

The NEXRAD is shiny and pretty, and getting around a buildup the short way is nice, but what sold me is the METARs, TAFs, and TFRs. Low ceilings and vis can hurt you just as easily as a thunderstorm, and busting a TFR ain't no picnic either. The AnywhereMap displays a segmented square for each reporting airport with various colors to show VFR, Marginal VFR, IFR, and pure crud, so I can find VFR ceilings and vis with a simple glance. It also downloads and displays TFR info.

Bob Axsom said:

Airliners? I guess you got to go where you got to go but in RV flying that is not usually the case. I weather is BAD (thunderstorms) I do not fly IFR I need to see them visually and avoid them now! not try to negotiate survival over the radio. At the same time Scott Crossfield was making his fatal flight IFR I was flying to Asheville from Fayetteville, Arkansas. Then on to Winston-Salem, NC and later returning to Fayetteville over a period of a few days (visit the Biltmore Estate shop for furniture, etc.). The out bound weather forecast was very demanding on flight planning. Instead of going the anticipated route I had to go down south to Chatanooga, TN for fuel then continue to Ashville, NC there were clouds but nothing severe so I filed and flew IFR. The trip into Asheville could not be flown safely in the IFR system in my opinion but the weather looked good for visual circumnavigation flight. That worked fine but the direct or airway routes looked like they would take my little RV-6A and spit out the pieces. The IFR flight to Winston-Salem was routine except for the "maintain maximum forward speed to the runway I have a Falcon jet behind - 160kt - harassing final controller - failed glide slope indicator - ILS turned Localizer approach". Weather home required some careful planning also up into Kentucky then back down to Nashville then and easy IFR in IMC back to Fayetteville. I don't know what Scott Crossfield's equipment was but his last contact was reported to be a request for deviation due to weather. My position is that another display of the weather on a screen in the cockpit would not have helped me on this flight and if the weather is bad - don't go there.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

Great Discussion on a very important topic.

The use of these devices is spreading rapidly and there is not a lot of discussion on what it doesn't do for you or how to use it safely.

Safe use depends a lot on your skill levels, experience, the type of flying you do and the capabilities of your aircraft.

Pretty much everything said above is true. It is addictive, convenient, handy, expensive, and potentially dangerous.

It is not a tactical flight aid but rather strategic. Iron flight is correct it does not provide much more than a good brief and updates via the radio. It just does it with greater ease and more conveniently. I think weather in picture form eases pilot workload as opposed to a description of a front or line of storms.

I think the best advice is if you wouldn't make a flight due to weather) without your 396 you probably shouldn't make it with the 396.

I have been flying onboard weather for 2 years with both a 396, flight cheetah and an MX20. It makes in flight decision making easier and quicker and substantially reduces the workload especially IFR.

It is not the device you want to use to penetrate a line of embedded thunderstorms.

I hear a lot of discussions at FBOs about it being a cheap replacement for radar or stormscope and that with it you can make flights you could not have made otherwise. This just ain't so. Depending on winds,aircraft speed and age of the images a stormcell can be 50 miles from the last image you have and if you can't see it out the window you won't know.

There also may be cloud cover that does not show on the nexrad or IR sat and if you have an old metar you are in for a surprise at your destination.

I love it, don't like to fly without it, it costs more than I like and it is not a go/no go item.

What it shows.........................................................................

Flying a 396over the top above a low overcast along a front No surprises.
Note this screen does not give age of images nor conditions below the overcast. IIt is available but you have to look for it. Think loss of engine.



Flight Cheetah 210 once again along the edge of the front note nexrad, tops and lightening as well as surface stations (more on this in closeups)

Closeup of storm cells with lightning (left of aircraft icon) It was a slow moving system clearly visible out the window.




Once again VFR over the top with low overcast and heavy moisture laden clouds below but no lightening and no visible build ups


Below note the time legend at the top noting image age. Nexrad and IR sat are given in minutes, all else green means <1/2 hr yellow>1/2 hr red>1 hr

The little green Ls on the map represent ceiling and vis Green is VFR yellow is Marg VFR red is IFR

You didn't happen to take any pictures out the window did you? It would be interesting for me to see how all that on-screen info matches to the visual picture outside.

Very interesting and entertaining Discussion.

I am virtually convinced that I will get the weather, and likely a 396 or 496 to replace my 196 in my-8 panel before next summer.

I am an old Army helicpoter driver with my share of scud running and get home-itis, and I really see a huge advantage for me in th -8 and ability to get around in confidence. I flew with a group of RVs from OSH headed for North GA, AL Wed leaving Oshkosh. We could not go direct. Lead had the 396, and we used it to keep us in great weather, and all made it home with little effort except a side trip to Missouri. I may have spent the night otherwise.

The other big issue for me, in the Georgia area, is that summer time visibility gets down to 5 and less to a really high altitude in the summer, and you cannot see ahead, but often the storms are very few and easy to miss.

The cost---I hate it, but my airplane, my passenger, and I am worth it. Maybe I'll start drinking more tap water!! or cancel a few subscriptions. Flying is more fun anyway.

With the 496 option, I also see taking it on trips, including camping, and being able to get weather there as well.

svanarts said:

You didn't happen to take any pictures out the window did you? It would be interesting for me to see how all that on-screen info matches to the visual picture outside.

Click to expand...

Bear in mind the picture out the window relative to the screen depends on wind speed and direction, your speed and direction and the age of the screen download. This is not real time data. The data has to be acquired, massaged, collated and transmitted. A 1 minute old nexrad in the cockpit may well be a 14 min old correlation of data.


Over the top under a layer beginning of flight from 396 image above.



100 miles from Tulsa from 396 image above



approaching the northern edge of the layer 396 image above

From the Flight Cheetah series of Pics above

Climbing thru a hole in Southern Miss storm is on left




Still in the climb early flight TSTM is on left and above



Northwest edge of storm on left above about to level off




Leaving storm behind (far western edge out left window



View out the right when abeam the storm

On the flight cheetah return trip from Houston to Miss

Looking down on a 2000 foot layer on IR no nexrad



Looking down on a somewhat thicker layer at about 6000' with nexrad showing below IR images

Hopefully not everyone is bored by all the pictures above but now that they are there let me comment on pre flight planning, conditions, and thought processes.

The 396 snapshot was early summer on a flight from McComb Mississippi to Sand Springs OK. As usual I went to the weather channel and thought uggggh no way.

Looked at ADDS and intellicast and felt a bit better about the trip. At least I knew I wouldnt have to slug through the soup the whole trip but probably would have to file and go IFR.

Fired up flitesoft and got a duats brief with Visuals (nexrads IRs etc along route as well as stations along route. It was 2000agl ceilings or better and 5-10 miles vis along the route except around Mid Arkansas where it was 1000 and 10. In any event the breifing to this point said I could get on top have clear VFR at the destination and beyond and good VFR to descend if I lost an engine or had to do an approach short of target. Had not yet looked at Weather Works.

Filed and got in the plane there was a big hole over the airport that actually showed on the 396 IR image exactly where it was. (note you have to get the 396 down to 10 to 25 mile range for accurate close in images)

Climbed thru the whole and had an uneventful flight. The system ended exactly where the 396 showed it ended. Along the route I checked METARS
for my current position to compare against my brief.

I carry old Low enroute charts and before each flight note ceiling/vis and baro for selected stations along my route in pencil on the chart. Before on board weather I would calll FSS or flightwatch for enroute weather and note changes or get the same from AWOS/ASOS.

The onboard weather has made this task easier and more convenient. I still tune in any ASOS in range as these are much more current than downloaded METARS.

Having the 396 did not affect ny decision to go and gave me no info that couldn't be gotten from the radio. Just more convenient easier and yes REEEEAAALLLY friggin neat.

On the Flight Cheetah images was a trip about 3 weeks ago from McComb Mississippi to Hooks field near Houston and back. Same process Weather Channel Duats ADDS etc. There was a line of not to widely scatterd thunderstorms from just South of my home field all the way to Houston that extended well out over the Gulf. In between and extending 30 miles to the North of my course line was lots of rain and Broken cumulus. Above to the Southe were multiple layers of scattered to broken Cumulus.

Ceiling and vis below areas of nexrad return were anywhere from 100' to 2000'. Pre weather brief showed the trip doable by skirting North along the edge of the system staying over areas where a VFR descent in the event of engine failure would allow safe descent and landing after breakout.

On board weather on this trip was exceedingly helpful in that it allowed me to track and updated route to stay over good solid VFR below. While radio calls could have done this it would have been a constant workload.

It was immensly helpful when I turned tSouth to Pick my way between nasty buildups into the Houston area by allowing me to see what was on the other side of the buildups during my descent.

On both of these trips the weather was clearly eyeball visible, it was slow moving, and correlated well with the on board images. It is not always so on every trip.

So beware. Do not use it as a subistute for on board radar/stormscope. Do not use it as a substitute for good preflight planning. Do not use it as a substitute for good judgement and common sense.

Do not consider the TFR data base complete or current. Always call FSS and leave tracks of having checked for current TFRs and also call FSS in flight for same.

TSA doesn't accept WxWrks didn't show the TFR as an excuse.

Great report, great advice, and not boring at all! Thanks!

Great Comments and Pictures Milt!

Milt, you are right on, and your pictures are very educational. You did the subject much more justice than I did....you have to always look at the limitations as well as the benefits of any tool.

Coming back from Florida today, I had a BUNCH of weather to dodge, and it made me think about a couple more things. The first was how quickly the weather picture can change. I was checking the Nexrad images of the route on my Blackberry (looking at the VAF Wx page) all morning, and it looked, at first. as if I was going to have an easy day - some showers off shore in the gulf, but nothing inland. Unfortunately, in the hour from 1300-1400, the atmosphere exploded! I wasn't able to leave the Cape until about 1500, and I was deviating around weather from Northern Florida all the way to the Texas border.

All that dodging made me think of another thing - I was sure glad that I was VFR! I was up at 10.5K all the way from the Cape to Picayune, Mississippi, and that worked out well, because I could deviate around cells and buildups without having to ask permission. The IFR system is really designed around straight lines. As busy as some frequencies get, you might have to wait awhile to get a request in edgewise, and by then, you could be into something you needed to avoid. I don't fly IFR in light planes with thunderstorms around - period! I mostly file IFR in the winter, when the problems are low clouds and poor visibility.

The other thing I thought about once again was how important it is to know what is behind the weather that you can see. When I landed in Picayune for fuel, I saw loads of storms to the west, and without a dynamic radar picture, it would have proved to be impassible. But with a near-real-time radar picture that let me see the backside, I knew that I wasn't going to get trapped - as long as I was smart, and always protected my escape routes. This requires looking ahead - the strategic aspect that was mentioned. You don't wait for your exit to get cut off - you never start into something unless the exit is always open. Since these were late-aftenoon storms, with well-developed tops up in the 40's, it was foolish to try and fly up high around the build-ups. My strategy changed to staying below the well-defined 3500' ceilings, flying around the rain from the cells, and using the Nexrad to make sure I didn't fly up a blind weather canyon.

Without the added insight of the Nexrad, I'd probably still be at KSC tonight. While it (or any tool) can never ensure 100% success in flying, it is one more arrow in the quiver that allows a good, thinking pilot to depend on his or her airplane for transportation.

Paul

it is one more arrow in the quiver that allows a good, thinking pilot to depend on his or her airplane for transportation.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right. I think it adds great utility to any plane and makes decision making enroute much easier.

I was in the yard mowing yesterday gazing up at the big white puffies and saw an RV headed toward Picayune. Wonder if it was you.

Next time you cross Mississippi let me know.

I hope we can keep this thread rolling with more pictures and trip descriptions. It is interesting to see how others flight plan and their strategies for dealing with weather. I almost always learn something that is eventually useful on a future flight.

N395V said:

I hope we can keep this thread rolling with more pictures and trip descriptions.

Click to expand...

So do I: http://www.podcastingnews.com/archives/2006/08/xm_and_sirius_s.html

I'm going to be in the doghouse with the CFO if XM folds right after putting $1500 into the AnywhereMap.

Remember the limitations

I think that Milt's posts on this subject is one of the best that I have seen in awhile. XM weather in the cockpit is great. It gives you a very clear, 'big picture' view of the weather, complete with regular updates.

The old school alternative is much harder. You ask for a frequency change, go to Flight Watch and try to visualize what the person on the other end is describing to you. A human filter, verbal communication, often over a poor connection...

But, as much as I see Milt 'get' it, I worry a little about the original post. Not to pick on Paul, but I *always* worry when I hear NexRad compared to onboard radar. Pilots need to realize that they are totally different tools.

The data from XM is typically 10-20 minutes old when you finally see it displayed. Most of the time, big weather systems don't travel all that far and fast, so the time delay doesn't hurt your big picture understanding. But individual cells can build very quickly - and by the time a buildup is about 4 times higher than it is wide, it is a serious threat to a light GA airplane. That is, things can start bending and breaking before something even appears on NexRad.

Not understanding how fast things really can change and just how delayed XM weather is has led some pilots to treat it as an alternative to on board radar and atmospherics (stormscope). I'm sure that you can drive in the soup and trust XM to avoid embedded cells and get away with it for awhile, but it is pretty risky. I've heard a number of folks give harrowing tales of just where this garden path can take you.

Again, the technology is great, just don't read more into it than is actually there. When it comes to t-storms in GA airplanes, putting yourself in a see-and-avoid situation (just like the big boys prefer to do) is always the most prudent course.

-jjf

Absolutely correct Fitz - you have to know, understand, and remember the limitations of every tool that you have available. And you have to set reasonable personal limitations as well - and these will probably be different for different people. Personally, I am a pretty big chicken when it comes to thunderstorms - that keeps me from shooting gaps that are too narrow. I didn't mean to imply that you can throw away a working airborne radar - just that the NexRad capability gives you a much less expensive option that ALSO gives you the capability to look way out beyond hat you can see with an airbornes set. I liked the thought up above that relates the difference bewteen strategic and tactical tools. The Nexrad is great for strategy, the Onboard is for tactics. Of course, the line bewteen strategy and tactics can sometimes be hard to descriminate (and probably changes anyway).

As I said - just another tool in the quiver, and far more practical in an RV than an airborne unit....(well, I'm sure a -10 builder will find a way!)

Paul

Bob, You are right on target with making sound decisions to stay on the ground or avoid flying anywhere near thunderstorms or questionable wx. As Ironflight suggests... never fly into a situation where you don't have a way out.

It appears pretty certain what happened to Scott Crossfield with his confrontation with thunderstorms. What we will probably never know is his thought process as to how he got himself boxed into that wx in the first place. I'm sure that most of us have found ourselves in wx situations that we dearly would have loved to have done over, but luckily were able to extricate ourselves. I know I have for sure.

I don't intend to load up my RV with a lot of fancy avionics, mostly because I simply can't afford it.

Cool avionics or not, the best secret to staying alive in this passion of ours is sound decision making before you ever leave the ground. And if you wind up not leaving the ground...so be it!

If I might

jdmunzell said:

Cool avionics or not, the best secret to staying alive in this passion of ours is sound decision making before you ever leave the ground. And if you wind up not leaving the ground...so be it!

Click to expand...

I don't completely agree this this statement... *IF* you have onboard weather, I believe it should be revised to say... "..the best secret to staying alive in this passion of ours is sound decision making before you ever leave the ground, or based upon inflight information. And if you wind up not leaving the ground, or landing early...so be it!

I also would suggest that Scott Crossfield may well have survived, if he onboard weather, and knew how to use it effectively.

I'm not suggesting anything contrary to what Milt has provided. I have flown now behind XM weather for over a year and about 100 hours in a G1000 182. It absolutely is the best tool that you can have, when you want to know what the weather is doing around you, without having to go thru all the pilot workload. Granted, I also have a Stormscope in my airplane. Going to and from OSH this year was a perfect example. The Return trip was on Sunday morning and after I was confident and the nexrad said that all the storms had gone passed OSH, I launched.

Down around Madison, everyone was diverting based upon the "look" out the window. I knew, based upon Stormscope and nexrad, that if I deviated to the west and south that I could get around the "back side" of the storm, stay VFR (even tho I was filed IFR), and then it would be CAVU VFR all the way to the TN boarder (I was heading for Georgia). Thats exactly what I did, and after I did that a bunch of other airplanes asked for Radar vectors on a similar track. Had I not had incockpit weather, I'd have done just like all the rest and diverted. There was Nasty stuff up there that day...

As a side note, it amazing when both the XM and the stromscope are "overlayed" how accurate the Nexrad lightning is. Also, I've *never seen* the update interval be anything greater than 5 mins for nexrad and nexrad lightning.

Good thread, and great thots... I just needed to revise that last posters comments a smidge

aadamson said:

I also would suggest that Scott Crossfield may well have survived, if he onboard weather, and knew how to use it effectively.

Click to expand...

I don't nec. disagree, but comments like this remind me of debates about the CAPS system in a Cirrus. Fans go on and on about all the lives saved, but on close inspection most the deployments have been pretty dubious. Of the few that seem (albiet from safe hindsight) like a good deployment decisions, there seems to be a mixed message.

In one case, the operator pulled the plane from maintanence and took off into low IFR - with wash water in the pitot static system. The parachute probably saved his life, but what about the long string of bad decisions and lack of good observation that led to that point?

Conversely, the fellow with the unexplained blackout seemed to make very sensible decisions up to, and including, the one to pull the handle. But, in hindsight, that decision nearly killed him. He did not have a second blackout, which is good - because he had to use the engine for a makeshift guidance system to avoid obstacles and broke his back in the water landing. The plane sank quickly and he only escaped with great difficulty.

CAPS fans sometimes get absolutely enraged discussing this one - "Better a broken back than DEAD!" they scream. Cirrus has repeatedly described it as a 'life saved'. But look at the facts. Pull equated to broken back, lost airframe, and near fatal drowing. Presumably someone who has the wits to makeshift his own power glider to avoid obstacles and improvise tools to aid his water escape probably could have flown and landed the nearby ILS - especially since the later would not include a broken back.

Had the thing he was fearing, another blackout, occured he would have been dead regardless of rather the handle got pulled or not. So on one hand we have a pilot who used technology to save himself from a string of terrible decisions and, on the other hand, a pilot who tried to make good and prudent decisions and wound up nearly killed by that same technology.

The problem I have with the Crossfield example is that there is not a lot of evidence to suggest that he was judiciously using all the non XM weather resources available to him. In fact, one wonders what he was thinking at all. Towards the end, he seems to have at least partially abdicated his PIC status to ATC. Again, it is a little hard to understand what he was thinking.

If a pilot did good up front weather planning, found conditions deviating from forecast, and ended up making a poor deviation decision because of miscommunication with FlightWatch, I'd say - yes, electronic access to the 'raw' data could well have saved a pilot.

But in a case where a pilot seems to disregard some available information, flies into some serious trouble, then looks to ATC for weather help, I'm not so sure. In Cockpit weather is best at making weather decisions 30-60 minutes away - not 'saving' you when you have already put yourself in dire peril.

I just hope pilots don't start factoring on board weather itself, not just the information it provides, into their go/no-go decisions.

-jjf

This is a series of photos taken on a trip from Pensacola FL to Hammond Louisiana in April of this year. As sunset approached we were coming into the edge of an occluded front near our destination. The photos were taken with a cell phone and are not high quality but I took them to correlate data from various sources in a close proximity time frame.

Onboard we had a 396 with Weather Works, An MX20 with WSI, radar, and a stormscope.

Out the window



MX20 with WSI



G396 with weather works


Radar


Stormscope

Penetrating a line of thunderstorms over Southwest US July 2006. No outside photos there was nothing to see. No downloadable weather just radar and a stormscope

Approaching badness


Into the badness


Probing through the badness


This is something I would not attempt with just weather works although it would have been nice to know what was on the other side as the precip was so heavy I could not get the radar to penetrate past 40 NM,

jdmunzell said:

I don't intend to load up my RV with a lot of fancy avionics, mostly because I simply can't afford it.

Click to expand...

I've kept track of "flight into terrain" accidents for years and years and years! And there has been lots of them! Incidents ranging from VFR into IMC conditions, as well IFR combined with confusion, and cancelling IFR to land at a small airport, then getting disoriented in the darkness.

As I do live and fly in mountainous country, I've kept up with the latest advancements in GPS and terrain data-bases since the beginnings. I've had the early moving map GPS's since the early 90's and wouldn't be caught "dead" without one!

Let's be blunt, and put it this way; the advancements in GPS is going to save lives! Lives of the pilot, passengers, and perhaps a few on the ground! It's highly added situational awareness, combined with a much better sense of judging what lies hundreds of miles away, thanks to new advancements like XM weather.

I don't want to hear "excuses"! These "fancy avionics" are available in small portable & light packages. Considering the total cost of operating an aircraft, the actual outlay for one of these highly advanced "safety" devices is small.

With so many past "flight into rising terrain" accidents involving commercial, military, and general aviation, I'm a very strong advocate for the advancement of GPS, and how it's going to "change" the future. Some of the new 3D terrain presentations are incredible!

If we're to putter around in the pattern, or just 50 miles away, that's one thing. But anyone interested in long day flights, of perhaps 400 miles each direction, can certainly benefit from this new technology. It makes much more sense, than trying to get a legitimate eight to twelve hour grasp of the advancing day's events before getting airborne. It's the difference between an informed guess, and actually "knowing"!

L.Adamson --- Garmin 296, will be going for the 496

aadamson said:

*IF* you have onboard weather, I believe it should be revised to say... "..the best secret to staying alive in this passion of ours is sound decision making before you ever leave the ground, or based upon inflight information. And if you wind up not leaving the ground, or landing early...so be it!

Click to expand...

****........

These "Adamson's" seem to know everything! I highly agree!

L.Adamson

396 vs Flight Cheetah

Milt, Which do you like the best, the Flight Cheetah or the 396? Isn't the subscription for the FC much less expensive than the 396?