Yesterday we planned on a proposed flight 50 miles away for dinner with
a light GA airplane newbie on board . The radar at home showed a very
narrow band of showers to the Northwest on a SW - NE line marching SE
towards us. The rain was limited to the lightest 2 green shades with an
occasional yellow dot showing here and there. In my experience, this is
usually light if it makes it to the surface at all. It looked like it
would take about 3-4 hours plus to arrive given its speed of advance.
Normally, I would make the "go decision" based on this and launch.

We went off to the airport and prepared the plane for the trip. Once the
396 had acquired weather data on the ground, it already showed the once
narrow band of green to be a much wider band of nearly solid yellow with
a few orange dots growing. This is usually some pretty moderate to heavy
rain and I was uncomfortable in challenging it. So, we went up locally
to show the newbie the wonders of the sky since the rain was several
hours away and the local skies were high broken. I did not do a whole
lot of testing, but the sat reception after upgrading to SW version 3.2
was much improved. Many more sats near the top. Never lost sat lock.

After a while, the rain band got wider still and I was convinced I did
the right thing scrubbing. We may have made it there and back, but it
would be awfully close. Then, the animation on the 396 looked like the
line had actually sped up in its Southeast track. I was now positive I
made the right choice.

Having this information in front of me was invaluable. Ordinarily, we
would have made the trip because we would not have known about the
deteriorating conditions. As the heavy rain would have started hitting
the windshield, I would have been torn between pressing on (with the old
radar information) or turning around because it had obviously changed.

As a funny aside, the rain did speed up and arrived 1.5 hours later.
However, right after we landed, the rain mass began to deteriorate again
to very light stuff. Our entire route saw only a few drops here and
there. This was a good illustration of how quickly things can change and
how valuable this info in the cockpit can be.

I am definitely keeping this thing!

Thanks,
Mike

> I am definitely keeping this thing!

Thanks, for all the PIREPs, Mike. They have been very helpful.

Mary and I are reluctantly considering buying the 396, precisely for
the reasons you just outlined in your post. It's a great tool --
perhaps, even, life-saving -- but (IMHO) it's just saddled with a
too-small screen.

We're holding out till OSH, under the (perhaps foolish) hope that
Lowrance or AvMap will finally introduce a weather-capable unit. If
they don't, we'll just have to get used to that dinky screen, I guess.

(Caveat: This isn't really a slam on the 396 per se. After flying
behind the AvMap and the Airmap 2000c, *everything* else on the market
looks "dinky"...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> I am definitely keeping this thing!
>
> Thanks, for all the PIREPs, Mike. They have been very helpful.
>
> Mary and I are reluctantly considering buying the 396, precisely for
> the reasons you just outlined in your post. It's a great tool --
> perhaps, even, life-saving -- but (IMHO) it's just saddled with a
> too-small screen.
>
> We're holding out till OSH, under the (perhaps foolish) hope that
> Lowrance or AvMap will finally introduce a weather-capable unit. If
> they don't, we'll just have to get used to that dinky screen, I guess.
>
> (Caveat: This isn't really a slam on the 396 per se. After flying
> behind the AvMap and the Airmap 2000c, *everything* else on the market
> looks "dinky"...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

IMHO, the 396 is over priced. Sure, the nexrad radar stuff is good to know, but it is not a real picture of the storms.
It is a representation of the echoes from the doppler radar station. The doppler is limited in that if a heavy down pour
is happening, it can not see through that down pour very well and other stations need to help out with interpolating the
data. I do like the METAR information, but like the radar, you can get updated from FSS or ATC real time also, but it
does take talking on the radio ;-)

".Blueskies." wrote:

> IMHO, the 396 is over priced.

Then don't buy one. That's how a free market works.

> Sure, the nexrad radar stuff is good to know, but it is not a real picture
> of the storms.

It is plenty real enough--I've been using it to dodge CBs in Thunderstorm
Alley for two years. I promise you that what you see on the screen is what
you will see out he window.

> It is a representation of the echoes from the doppler radar station. The
> doppler is limited in that if a heavy down pour is happening, it can not
> see through that down pour very well and other stations need to help out
> with interpolating the data.

Which makes it better than on-board radar, which has no way to overcome
attenuation.

> I do like the METAR information, but like the radar, you can get updated
> from FSS or ATC real time also, but it does take talking on the radio
> ;-)

Ever try to maintain a mental picture of moving thunderstorms by talking to
Fligh****ch and looking at a sectional? It's like flying blind compared to
having an animated NEXRAD picture in front of you.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Mike Spera" wrote:

>
> I am definitely keeping this thing!
>

By now, you have probably reached the "How did I ever live without this
thing?" stage.

I can't imagine that I ever thought it was reasonable to do a blind, airport
to airport hop-skotch from Mobile to Houston in a state of high anxiety over
thunderstorms the whole way. Talk about the bad old days!

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

>
> IMHO, the 396 is over priced. Sure, the nexrad radar stuff is good to know, but it is not a real picture of the storms.
> It is a representation of the echoes from the doppler radar station. The doppler is limited in that if a heavy down pour
> is happening, it can not see through that down pour very well and other stations need to help out with interpolating the
> data. I do like the METAR information, but like the radar, you can get updated from FSS or ATC real time also, but it
> does take talking on the radio ;-)
>


I agree that it is overpriced. My earlier whining attests to that. But,
I'm not sure about the assessment about the National Nexrad composite
being somehow inaccurate. Because several stations view the rain events
from multiple angles, I believe what you do get is an accurate
representation. On board radar suffers from attenuation (low power,
small aperature) but that is balanced by the fact that on board is real
time. I thought that high powered, large aperature, ground based weather
radar could punch through about any weather. Am I misunderstanding the
capabilities of these units and this system? Anyone have objective data
and stats?

I also like the Metar/TAF/TFR data being at hand. Yes, I agree that you
can call FSS. If on an IFR plan, you have to check out and back in to do
so. During moderate turbulence in solid IMC, looking at the 396 is WAY
less workload for me. Also, I can scroll ahead and view METARs along the
route, or off-route to find a better path. In IMC, there is no way I can
even see the red blob in my path to even ask for a heading change. If
ATC is not busy, they may tell me, maybe not.

Is this worth the current price, probably not to some. But, with tens of
thousands invested in this airplane, ANYTHING that will increase its
utility is worth considering to me.

Thanks for the alternate viewpoint. The GPS makers need to be listening in.

Mike

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I am definitely keeping this thing!
>
>
> Thanks, for all the PIREPs, Mike. They have been very helpful.
>
> Mary and I are reluctantly considering buying the 396, precisely for
> the reasons you just outlined in your post. It's a great tool --
> perhaps, even, life-saving -- but (IMHO) it's just saddled with a
> too-small screen.
>
> We're holding out till OSH, under the (perhaps foolish) hope that
> Lowrance or AvMap will finally introduce a weather-capable unit. If
> they don't, we'll just have to get used to that dinky screen, I guess.
>
> (Caveat: This isn't really a slam on the 396 per se. After flying
> behind the AvMap and the Airmap 2000c, *everything* else on the market
> looks "dinky"...)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
Jay,

I agree totally about the screen. I will take some getting used to.
After the Airmap 1000, this thing looks puny. But there are quite a few
other considerations. Remember, I am still wincing in pain over the
price tag, so I am by no means 100% sold on this purchase. As it begins
to perform as expected I may get there some day. I would already be
there at $1495:)

First off, the Lowrance software won't let you resize the fonts. A big
screen is not of much use if you cannot read it. Maybe later versions of
software fixed this. When I actually had a dialog with someone at
Lowrance (a feat of unimaginable difficulty), they said it was not on
their "to-do" list last year. The Garmin allows you to independently
resize large airports, small airports, and cities.

Next, the resolution of the Garmin is far superior to the Lowrance. I am
not sure of the exact specs. But, it is like the difference between an
IBM Thinkpad and an Apple Powerbook. Even with less than perfect near
vision, I can read SMALLER text on a better, smaller screen.

Moving on, you can declutter the Garmin in 3 stages, just by repeatedly
pressing "enter" while on the map page. Quick, elegant. I believe the
Lowrance makes you go through several menus. I absolutely had to turn
off highways on the 1000 or I could not even read the screen with
Ray-Bans on. With the Garmin, I leave them on. This may have a lot to do
with the Garmin being color.

Finally, the backlight. The 1000 screen is made to be readable in
daylight without a backlight. The Garmin uses the "other" design where a
backlight is needed all the time. The color saturation and definition is
remarkable.

Go see one at the nearest dealer. Take your 2000 with you. You may be
surprised at what is accomplished on the smaller screen.

Hey, anyone know where I can get bifocal Ray-Bans??????

Thanks,
Mike

> Go see one at the nearest dealer. Take your 2000 with you. You may be
> surprised at what is accomplished on the smaller screen.

I was lucky enough to borrow a friend's 396 for four hours. Although
I didn't get to fly with it, I *did* get to play extensively, and was
able to watch the weather (VERY cool) develop "live". I was also able
to compare the screen to my current GPSs.

(As you may recall, we've got the awesome AvMap EKP-III on the pilot's
yoke, and the very nice Airmap 2000c on the co-pilot's yoke. This
set-up gives us unparallelled situational awareness -- but no weather.)

The 396 falls between these two units in readability and resolution.
The AvMap simply can't be beat, with its 7-inch screen and extremely
sharp resolution. The Lowrance product is very good, but is not nearly
as sharp as the Garmin or the AvMap.

However, size really DOES matter in GPS. The ability to view your
entire route, clearly, without losing too much detail, only comes with
screen size -- and both the AvMap and the Airmap beat the Garmin hand's
down in this department.

We would have a VERY hard time going back to a screen the size of the
396 (even with my new progressive-lens glasses), but it might be worth
a step backwards in that department to achieve the undeniable safety of
having on-board weather "radar".

AvMap remains a "fringe" player in the market, despite having a
fantastic product -- so I understand their inability to spend the $$$
on acquiring weather capability. However, I am completely puzzled by
Lowrance's inaction with regards to weather depiction. With their
commanding hold on the boating market, you would *think* that they
would have a HUGE potential market for weather depiction?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> AvMap remains a "fringe" player in the market, despite having a
> fantastic product -- so I understand their inability to spend the $$$
> on acquiring weather capability. However, I am completely puzzled by
> Lowrance's inaction with regards to weather depiction. With their
> commanding hold on the boating market, you would *think* that they
> would have a HUGE potential market for weather depiction?

Jay,

Does the Avmap have a USB input?

Mike

>>>>> "MS" == Mike Spera > writes:
MS> On
MS> board radar

Isn't any comparison to OBR an intellectual exercise for almost all of
us, given that our planes do not and will not have it? So for
realtime--or nearly so--weather info you have your eyes, your radio
tuned to 122.0, or the Garmin 396 (or equivalent with a PDA).

I'd love to get the 396, but the cost (both initial and ongoing) and
smallish screen deter me. Besides it's hard to justify in
N. California's Central Valley--anybody can make a reasonable
prediction of weather 10 years ahead.

I've got a known good (4 years of field-testing it at every antenna seminar
I've given, roughly twenty of them) external GPS active antenna I'd be more
than willing to loan you to see if it clears up your problem.

The only problem you may have using it for a temporary test is that it
required a 7/8" hole cut into a metal ground plane to perform properly (see
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/catalog/gps_antenna.html for a picture of what
it looks like). Since you probably don't want to cut a hole in your pretty
airplane for a temporary test, how you fabricate and test the ground plane
is an exercise for the student to do. I have used it with an old CD for a
ground plane and it worked well. You can cut the plastic of the CD with a
hot knife or a skilsaw.

If you want to play with it for a few weeks, just send me a SASE that will
hold something about the size of a baseball and normal copy-paper 18 page
manual. It has a BNC(M) connector attached at the GPS end.

Jim



"Mike Spera" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Yesterday we planned on a proposed flight 50 miles away for dinner with a
> light GA airplane newbie on board

> I am definitely keeping this thing!
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

Mike - Thanks for all the interesting PIREPs on the 396. I'm not
considering buying but find the feature descriptions and your
trial/tribulation experience interesting to read.

What are your ongoing costs and what features does that provide?

Thanks.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL-Instrument Airplane
Arrow N2104T

"To become a Jedi knight, you must master a single force. To become
a private pilot you must strive to master four of them"
- Rod Machado

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

In article m>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> However, size really DOES matter in GPS. The ability to view your
> entire route, clearly, without losing too much detail, only comes with
> screen size -- and both the AvMap and the Airmap beat the Garmin hand's
> down in this department.

The Garmin's screen resolution (480x320) is much better than the
Lowrance AirMap 2000c (320x240), so your ability to view the entire
route has nothing to do with screen size. If you zoom out on the
Garmin, you can view your entire route, but I still think that the
horizontal orientation of the Garmin screen is suboptimal for navigation.

That being said, having the weather is invaluable as a safety and
planning tool. The Garmin screen does make the "big picture" a little
more challenging, but it's certainly better than having no information
at all. Right now, the 396 is as good as it gets for portable in-flight
weather combined with navigation information.



JKG

In article >,
".Blueskies." > wrote:
> IMHO, the 396 is over priced. Sure, the nexrad radar stuff is good to know,
> but it is not a real picture of the storms.
> It is a representation of the echoes from the doppler radar station. The
> doppler is limited in that if a heavy down pour
> is happening, it can not see through that down pour very well and other
> stations need to help out with interpolating the
> data. I do like the METAR information, but like the radar, you can get
> updated from FSS or ATC real time also, but it
> does take talking on the radio ;-)

You are not correct about the weather information and, IMO, not correct
about the price when compared to similar products on the market. I
agree, the previous $2695 price tag was a bit expensive, but the new,
lower price is more reasonable.

The NEXRAD information is pretty much as good as it gets. Ground radar
stations are not subject to the same attenuation problems suffered by
airborne weather radar, and as a result, generate a much better overall
picture of current and developing conditions. Composite imagery is used
from multiple radar sites and multiple antenna tilts. Combine the
NEXRAD picture with other data such as Echo Tops, and you have a pretty
accurate picture of developing conditions.



JKG

Jim,

Thanks for the offer, but I believe it is working acceptably now. The
new swap unit did a much better job of receiving sats in all directions.
Upgrading the software to version 3.2 showed an additional improvement.
Transmitting now degrades the reception on one or two sats which is O.K.
WAAS locks and never unlocks. Before, transmitting would bring all sats
to zero in about 7 seconds. Also, it does not lose sats heading
Southeast like the original unit did. They all stay strong.

I may rebuild the almanac for kicks and see if that does anything
positive. Like I said, it now works well enough for me to rely on it.

Again, thanks for the offer.

Mike

RST Engineering wrote:
> I've got a known good (4 years of field-testing it at every antenna seminar
> I've given, roughly twenty of them) external GPS active antenna I'd be more
> than willing to loan you to see if it clears up your problem.
>
> The only problem you may have using it for a temporary test is that it
> required a 7/8" hole cut into a metal ground plane to perform properly (see
> http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/catalog/gps_antenna.html for a picture of what
> it looks like). Since you probably don't want to cut a hole in your pretty
> airplane for a temporary test, how you fabricate and test the ground plane
> is an exercise for the student to do. I have used it with an old CD for a
> ground plane and it worked well. You can cut the plastic of the CD with a
> hot knife or a skilsaw.
>
> If you want to play with it for a few weeks, just send me a SASE that will
> hold something about the size of a baseball and normal copy-paper 18 page
> manual. It has a BNC(M) connector attached at the GPS end.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> "Mike Spera" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Yesterday we planned on a proposed flight 50 miles away for dinner with a
>>light GA airplane newbie on board
>
>
>>I am definitely keeping this thing!
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Mike
>>
>
>
>

Jack Allison wrote:

> Mike - Thanks for all the interesting PIREPs on the 396. I'm not
> considering buying but find the feature descriptions and your
> trial/tribulation experience interesting to read.
>
> What are your ongoing costs and what features does that provide?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
I purchased the "Aviator LT" package. It is $29.99 per month with a $75
one time activation fee.

It includes METARS, TAFs, TFRs, Nexrad Radar, City Forecasts, precip
type (at surface) and county warnings. There are also some marine
components.

The full subscription ($49.99/mo.) gives satellite mosaic, lightning
strikes, severe storm location and track, surface analysis, winds aloft,
and a bunch of other services.

You can add XM Radio for $6.99/mo. + a one time $14.99 activation fee. I
already hook in my iPod to my intercom so I am not interested in the
radio portion.

Go to www.xmweather.com for the detailed listing.
Thanks,
Mike

In article et>,
Mike Spera > wrote:
> You can add XM Radio for $6.99/mo. + a one time $14.99 activation fee. I
> already hook in my iPod to my intercom so I am not interested in the
> radio portion.


BTW, when I called XM to activate the audio content, I was told that
there was no activation fee because the 396 uses the same radio ID for
both datalink and audio--in other words, you aren't activating another
radio, you're simply starting the audio subscription to a radio that's
already activated.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> ".Blueskies." > wrote:
>> IMHO, the 396 is over priced. Sure, the nexrad radar stuff is good to know,
>> but it is not a real picture of the storms.
>> It is a representation of the echoes from the doppler radar station. The
>> doppler is limited in that if a heavy down pour
>> is happening, it can not see through that down pour very well and other
>> stations need to help out with interpolating the
>> data. I do like the METAR information, but like the radar, you can get
>> updated from FSS or ATC real time also, but it
>> does take talking on the radio ;-)
>
> You are not correct about the weather information and, IMO, not correct
> about the price when compared to similar products on the market. I
> agree, the previous $2695 price tag was a bit expensive, but the new,
> lower price is more reasonable.
>
> The NEXRAD information is pretty much as good as it gets. Ground radar
> stations are not subject to the same attenuation problems suffered by
> airborne weather radar, and as a result, generate a much better overall
> picture of current and developing conditions. Composite imagery is used
> from multiple radar sites and multiple antenna tilts. Combine the
> NEXRAD picture with other data such as Echo Tops, and you have a pretty
> accurate picture of developing conditions.
>
>
>
> JKG

The NEXRAD is only as good as the interpretation, like you said. Ground based is subject to the attenuation issues just
like airborne (granted they do have more power so they can see further), and the NEXRAD is not real time as some seem to
think. Like you said, all the data needs to be taken together to get some sense of the conditions, particularly
lightening strikes. Does the 396 display the lightening also?

In article >,
".Blueskies." > wrote:

> The NEXRAD is only as good as the interpretation, like you said. Ground based
> is subject to the attenuation issues just
> like airborne (granted they do have more power so they can see further), and
> the NEXRAD is not real time as some seem to
> think. Like you said, all the data needs to be taken together to get some
> sense of the conditions, particularly
> lightening strikes. Does the 396 display the lightening also?


Ground-based NEXRAD is NOT subject to the same attenuation issues as
airborne weather radar. Ground-based radar is much more powerful and
uses a much larger antenna, but the real advantage is with the composite
imagery and other radar-derived products, such as Echo Tops. There is
more information about developing conditions in those two products
(NEXRAD and Echo Tops) than you could ever derive from even the best
airborne radar. The big disadvantage to the ground-based products is
that there is a delay between collection, processing, and delivery.
However, this delay is really irrelevant to strategic planning.

The 396 displays lightning, but it's no match for a sferics device
(Stormscope or StrikeFinder). The ground-based lightning detection
network (operated by Vaisala) is not nearly as broad nor as capable as
the ground-based radar network.



JKG

In article >,
Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> Ground-based NEXRAD is NOT subject to the same attenuation issues as
> airborne weather radar. Ground-based radar is much more powerful and


I should clarify this comment by stating that I realize that all radar
is subject to attenuation, but the results from the terrestrial radar
network do not suffer from the same attenuation-related issues as
airborne weather radar.


JKG

> Does the Avmap have a USB input?

No. (The new EKP-IV might, though?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Does the Avmap have a USB input?
>
> No. (The new EKP-IV might, though?)

The LS800 (VistaNav) does.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Garmin's screen size is adequate for the job. You can get all the info
you need off of that screen. Sure a larger screen would be better, but
what other product has the real time nexrad radar? Answer, NONE. And
TONS of pilots use these small screens to navigate all over the world
with very few problems. If anyone comes out with a larger screen GPS at
Oshkosh, I would think it would be Garmin. Of course you CAN get larger
screen, get a 530!!

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Go see one at the nearest dealer. Take your 2000 with you. You may be
> > surprised at what is accomplished on the smaller screen.
>
> I was lucky enough to borrow a friend's 396 for four hours. Although
> I didn't get to fly with it, I *did* get to play extensively, and was
> able to watch the weather (VERY cool) develop "live". I was also able
> to compare the screen to my current GPSs.
>
> (As you may recall, we've got the awesome AvMap EKP-III on the pilot's
> yoke, and the very nice Airmap 2000c on the co-pilot's yoke. This
> set-up gives us unparallelled situational awareness -- but no weather.)
>
> The 396 falls between these two units in readability and resolution.
> The AvMap simply can't be beat, with its 7-inch screen and extremely
> sharp resolution. The Lowrance product is very good, but is not nearly
> as sharp as the Garmin or the AvMap.
>
> However, size really DOES matter in GPS. The ability to view your
> entire route, clearly, without losing too much detail, only comes with
> screen size -- and both the AvMap and the Airmap beat the Garmin hand's
> down in this department.
>
> We would have a VERY hard time going back to a screen the size of the
> 396 (even with my new progressive-lens glasses), but it might be worth
> a step backwards in that department to achieve the undeniable safety of
> having on-board weather "radar".
>
> AvMap remains a "fringe" player in the market, despite having a
> fantastic product -- so I understand their inability to spend the $$$
> on acquiring weather capability. However, I am completely puzzled by
> Lowrance's inaction with regards to weather depiction. With their
> commanding hold on the boating market, you would *think* that they
> would have a HUGE potential market for weather depiction?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Intersting several threads. I'm suprised no one has mentioned VistaNav.
Don't have it I use Pocket FMS on an iPAQ, but vistnav seems the way of the
future. Sure it is a little expensive, but you get generational
improvements - Wx, Approach plates, synthetic vision, runway diags etc etc.
And on a Motion LS800 (or any other tablet PC - screensize - if you want 15"
you got 15" - the motion is 8" IIRC). Plus extensible and (somewhat)
expandable.

A Garmin 396 to my mind is essentially old technology with a few
improvements as add ons - better screen resolution, Wx and so on. It is a
GPS, and probably a good one, but 2D just another mousetrap. The vistanav
system, IMHO, really differentiates from the crowd.... If I were looking to
expend some reasonably serious bucks, this would be my first port of call.
New system - no problem, just upgrade the software AND you don't have to
upload anything from your PC - it IS your PC (LS 800 with bluetooth keyboard
other tablets with builtin keyboards etc etc).

Jusrt a thought and, as always, YMMV.

Cheers,
Kevin


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Does the Avmap have a USB input?
>
> No. (The new EKP-IV might, though?)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I have had my 396 since last September. I have used it to make far
more informed decisions in the cockpit than I could have made
otherwise. What you see on the screen is what you'll see outside
regarding buildups and precip. Armed with this I have been able to
navigate around buildups and pick my way through weather that I would
not have done otherwise. That alone has saved me flight time that
would have been spent performing lengthy diversions.

Informing FSS on accurate info is helpful when giving a pilot report.

The combination of the 396 with XM, and a stormscope provides me with a
lot of information. Last month I arrived at an airport in stormy
weather. I had been watching it for the duration of the flight and was
planning to use an alternate but the weather appeared to be breaking
up. There was a narow but clear corridor along one of the VOR
approaches to the field. I shot the approach and landed in light
precip and good visibility.

Bob

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> Mike Spera > wrote:
>> You can add XM Radio for $6.99/mo. + a one time $14.99 activation fee. I
>> already hook in my iPod to my intercom so I am not interested in the
>> radio portion.
>
>
> BTW, when I called XM to activate the audio content, I was told that
> there was no activation fee because the 396 uses the same radio ID for
> both datalink and audio--in other words, you aren't activating another
> radio, you're simply starting the audio subscription to a radio that's
> already activated.
>
>
>
> JKG


FWIW, I have to different XM radios in cars and it has been trivial to get
them to waive activation fees.

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Mike Spera" wrote:
>>I am definitely keeping this thing!
>>
> By now, you have probably reached the "How did I ever live without this
> thing?" stage.
>
> I can't imagine that I ever thought it was reasonable to do a blind, airport
> to airport hop-skotch from Mobile to Houston in a state of high anxiety over
> thunderstorms the whole way. Talk about the bad old days!
>
You said it right there. I can't imagine making the mid-day journey
from South FL to NC without it. Or flying along the gulf coast near NO.
High anxiety indeed.

On 9-Jul-2006, Mike Spera > wrote:

> In IMC, there is no way I can even see the red blob in my path to even ask
> for a heading change. If
> ATC is not busy, they may tell me, maybe not.


Most of my flying is in the Pacific Northwest where thunderstorms are rare.
(Icing is far and away the biggest weather limitation to IFR flight.) But
on a flight over the Continental Divide in Montana last summer, while in
IMC, the controller advised me of a new and urgent SIGMET for an area of
scattered, embedded thunderstorms that had popped up, unforcasted, right
along my flight path. He then did a masterful job of vectoring me through
them. I hit some rain, but no real turbulence. Still, it would have been a
lot less nerve wracking if I had been able to see where I was going in
relation to the storms. Also, if this had been in busy airspace I doubt
that the controller would have had time to do this vectoring for more than a
couple of planes at most.

Whether by vectors or in-cockpit display, Nexrad can't be used for picking
your way though a line of weather, but it will work for steering safely
between and around scattered storms.

If I flew frequently in thunderstorm country I would have already bought a
396 (or some other Nexrad display system). As it is, it's high on my wish
list.

-Elliott Drucker

FPS396 Precip Colors

Do the precip colors displayed on the GPS396 correspond to FSS Level 1-6?

How do you know how heavy the precip within a given color band is?

What decision making criteria do you use to determine if you will fly
within a given color band?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>> Go see one at the nearest dealer. Take your 2000 with you. You may be
>> surprised at what is accomplished on the smaller screen.
>
> I was lucky enough to borrow a friend's 396 for four hours. Although
> I didn't get to fly with it, I *did* get to play extensively, and was
> able to watch the weather (VERY cool) develop "live". I was also able
> to compare the screen to my current GPSs.
>
snip

> a step backwards in that department to achieve the undeniable safety of
> having on-board weather "radar".
>

Jay, after the tornado, you should have one of these in your convertable.

Al G

Ummm... sorry for throwing a wrench into this..

We use an IPAQ (with built in GPS) and connect to the local
(wherever) Nav Canada weather radar site.

Gives us real time colour weather radar picture..

Not superimposed on the GPS screen, but does the job..

Dave



On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:57:59 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
>> In article et>,
>> Mike Spera > wrote:
>>> You can add XM Radio for $6.99/mo. + a one time $14.99 activation fee. I
>>> already hook in my iPod to my intercom so I am not interested in the
>>> radio portion.
>>
>>
>> BTW, when I called XM to activate the audio content, I was told that
>> there was no activation fee because the 396 uses the same radio ID for
>> both datalink and audio--in other words, you aren't activating another
>> radio, you're simply starting the audio subscription to a radio that's
>> already activated.
>>
>>
>>
>> JKG
>
>
>FWIW, I have to different XM radios in cars and it has been trivial to get
>them to waive activation fees.
>

> Jay, after the tornado, you should have one of these in your convertable.

Right!

(Although, it wouldn't have helped. After all, I was looking at very
similar radar at the airport, and it didn't show it...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> FPS396 Precip Colors
>
> Do the precip colors displayed on the GPS396 correspond to FSS Level 1-6?
>
Don't think so. It appears that the Nexrad has about 12 colors in the range.
> How do you know how heavy the precip within a given color band is?
>
Flown in several of them (Weather Channel in the FBO) and I know that
yellow is beginning to be moderate on the heavier side. Orange and up
are a bit too much for the Cherokee. I've briefly been in very heavy
rain with full throttle, carb heat, and descending about 150 feet/min.
I'm not interested in going there again. The only reason I did it was
that immediately when it began, I heard a radio call about 3 miles away
from a fellow who broke out of it into clear skies. This was in about
1996. Not sure what color it would translate to but I am not anxious to
repeat the experience.
> What decision making criteria do you use to determine if you will fly
> within a given color band?
Will the plane fly? Can I see for at least a mile or two? Is the ceiling
at or above 3000ft? Dark Green, probably. Yellow/orange, probably not.

Compact areas of orange/red can mean Tstorms. I don't go within 25-30
miles of those.