WxWorx is shipping, looking for first feedback

[Mark T. Mueller]

Anyone have one of the first units? WxWorx website is stating they are now
shipping. Looking for some firsthand reports.

I gave up on Garmin's GDL-49 (tactically useless), and Control Vision
(transponder interference problems with some KT-76 transponders and flaky
downloads in some areas of the country). Looks like WxWorx will meet my
needs, but wondering if anyone with one of the first units shipping has any
comment...

It is very refreshing to see a company with some business smarts (chose the
PROVEN XM sat broadcast system as the data carrier, won't disappear
overnight like the MerlinWx guys) has produced a useful product at a
reasonable price (non-cert portable WxWorx receiver is about 1/10th the cost
of the WSI non-cert product!!!) I am really excited about this new system,
and would love to hear from any current users.

Garmin decided to go with WxWorx for their new "Gucci" G-1000 wonder-box
(but refuse to address application on the 430/530...)

TIA,

Mark
Tiger N1533R

[Richard Kaplan]

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
...

> of the WSI non-cert product!!!) I am really excited about this new system,
> and would love to hear from any current users.


I have it and it works great.. my only complaint is all the wires. I wish
they could put the XM Radio receiver in a PCMCIA card to make it a lot
cleaner in the cockpit.

But it is far better than any other portable alternative by far.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dan Luke]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> > of the WSI non-cert product!!!) I am really excited about this new
system,
> > and would love to hear from any current users.
>
>
> I have it and it works great.. my only complaint is all the wires. I wish
> they could put the XM Radio receiver in a PCMCIA card to make it a lot
> cleaner in the cockpit.

What are you using for display, Richard? Could you give a description of
your setup?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...

> What are you using for display, Richard? Could you give a description of
> your setup?


I am using a Windows XP laptop computer for the display. I do not want to
run the XMRadio box and my portable GPS and also my laptop computer all from
my airplane's cigarette lighter, so I bought a 7 Amp-hour rechargable 12V
battery with a cigarette lighter output and that powes the XMRadio and if
necessary it charges my laptop on longer flights. I got a big briefcase to
put all the boxes and wires in and it, although I am thinking a small
duffel-bag type carrier might turn out to be better in the long-run. It
also works fine technically but takes a bit of organization to set it up;
the advantage is that once it is set up, no intervention is required -- it
automatically updates weather every 5 minutes just like a radar or
stormscope, with no distracting button-pressing needed in-flight. That is a
big plus.. buy boy would it be a lot nicer if they could put all the
hardware into a PCMCIA card.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dave]

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message >...

>
> Garmin decided to go with WxWorx for their new "Gucci" G-1000 wonder-box
> (but refuse to address application on the 430/530...)
>

I, too, am annoyed by this. A rep from WxWorx told me that all
queries related to Garmin and WxWorkx need to go to Garmin. When I
asked Garmin about wxworx on the 400/500 series, they said nothing is
planned right now. My hunch is that they don't want to jepordize
their relation with WSI, or the sales of their GDL-49 that they
probably haven't even begun recouping R&D costs on yet. If there was
a broadcast option for the GDL-49, I'd consider it. But I don't want
to have to keep requesting weather manually.

I don't want to lug a laptop into the plane. And, of course, for hard
IFR, you can't legally use it anyway.

[Dan Luke]

"Dave" wrote:
> I don't want to lug a laptop into the plane. And, of
> course, for hard IFR, you can't legally use it anyway.

??? What's the legal problem?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> > I don't want to lug a laptop into the plane. And, of
> > course, for hard IFR, you can't legally use it anyway.
>
> ??? What's the legal problem?

Maybe he meant that you can't use it for your primary navigation?

Other than that, I'm not aware of any "legal problem".

Pete

[Dave]

"Dan Luke" <c172rgATbellsouthDOTnet> wrote in message >...
> "Dave" wrote:
> > I don't want to lug a laptop into the plane. And, of
> > course, for hard IFR, you can't legally use it anyway.
>
> ??? What's the legal problem?

Maybe it's all in the interpretation, but 14 CFR 91.21 spells it out.
The loophole may be item 5. But, what constitutes the operator making
an informed decision that a laptop with the other associated equipment
won't cause interference to the NAV and COM equipment?


"(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft
allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the
following U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

(1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating
certificate or an operating certificate; or

(2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to --

(1) Portable voice recorders;

(2) Hearing aids;

(3) Heart pacemakers;

(4) Electric shavers; or

(5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the
aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to
be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination
required by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that
operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be used.
In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made by the
pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft. "

[Dan Luke]

"Dave" wrote:
>
> Maybe it's all in the interpretation, but 14 CFR 91.21 spells it
out.

I still don't see what that's got to do with "hard IFR."
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dave]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message >...
> "Dave" wrote:
> >
> > Maybe it's all in the interpretation, but 14 CFR 91.21 spells it
> out.
>
> I still don't see what that's got to do with "hard IFR."


my implication was that if you're flying "hard IFR", you're in IMC on
an IFR flight plan, and would thus be subject to 91.21. Folks, I
think this is a great product. I just wish they would integrate it
with some cockpit MFD's (other than the gazillion dollar Garmin G1000
system)

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave" > wrote in message
m...
> my implication was that if you're flying "hard IFR", you're in IMC on
> an IFR flight plan, and would thus be subject to 91.21.

91.21 applies to all flight. If you think that WxWorx with a laptop is not
legal for "hard IFR" (which most of us call "hard IMC") based on 91.21, then
you think it is not legal under any circumstances. Do you really think
that?

Pete

[Dave]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> m...
> > my implication was that if you're flying "hard IFR", you're in IMC on
> > an IFR flight plan, and would thus be subject to 91.21.
>
> 91.21 applies to all flight. If you think that WxWorx with a laptop is not
> legal for "hard IFR" (which most of us call "hard IMC") based on 91.21, then
> you think it is not legal under any circumstances. Do you really think
> that?
>
> Pete

I, and many pilots I know, interpret this rule to mean that flying
under part 91 on an IFR flight plan, it is illegal to use any portable
electronics not FAA-approved. This rule says nothing about VFR
operations. I think the issue at hand is if you are in the soup and
using an 'unapproved' piece of electronic equipment that you really
don't know for certain will or won't cause interferenec with your
equipment, then you shouldn't be using it. Another idea may be that
if you are fiddling with a laptop sitting in your lap, right seat or
even a pedistal between seats, that's time that you're not focused on
the instruments.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave" > wrote in message
om...
> I, and many pilots I know, interpret this rule to mean that flying
> under part 91 on an IFR flight plan, it is illegal to use any portable
> electronics not FAA-approved.

Sounds like you've changed your tune. Before, you were claiming the
regulation prohibited use of electronics when flying "hard IFR". Now you've
apparently figured out that only the flight rules under which the flight is
made matter, and that the meteorological conditions are irrelevant.

Glad you came around...

[Dave]

Perhaps I should clarify rather than change my tune. Hard IFR would
imply to me that you are flying under IFR. When the FAA says "under
IFR", I take that to mean you are filed - regardless of whether the
conditions warrant it. But an being on an IFR flight plan would not
necessarily imply that the conditions are IMC.

So, yeah - you could be flying an IFR plan(i.e. "under IFR") with
perfectly good VFR conditions. The reg would indicate that *any*time
you are on an IFR plan (i.e. "under IFR"), regardless of the weather,
you can't use portable electronics. My original comment about not
being able to use the laptop while in "hard IFR" implied that you are
flying on an IFR plan (i.e. "under IFR"), hence under IFR regs and
could not therefore legally use it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave" > wrote in message
m...
> [...] My original comment about not
> being able to use the laptop while in "hard IFR" implied that you are
> flying on an IFR plan (i.e. "under IFR"), hence under IFR regs and
> could not therefore legally use it.

Suppose I told you "it's illegal to fly an airplane IFR without a current
annual inspection". Suppose you didn't already know that annual inspections
are required for ALL flight in Normal category aircraft (among others),
whether IFR or not. Do you feel that my statement would be useful? That
is, that it would tell you what you need to know?

Even given that you know annuals are required for VFR flight, do you think
what I said was -- even though completely true -- a useful contribution to a
discussion?

The use of "hard IFR" in your original statement implied (without actually
saying so) that the regulation applies *only* to "hard IFR" flight. It is
this misleading nature of your original statement that Dan (and subsequently
I) was taking issue with.

Pete