Anywhere Map with XM weather

[Doodybutch]

I just ordered Anywhere Map with XM weather today using a wireless Compaq
4700 PDA. It sounds like the display and features are a lot better than the
Garmin 430/530 with XM weather, as far as the moving map, terrain avoidance,
and weather displays go, although it is not IFR approved and it has no COM
capability, of course. It is MUCH cheaper. I've been waiting for ground
based radar in the cockpit for 20 years.

I would like to hear comments from others who have tried this product. I
have only seen the Aviation Consumer review and the Anywhere Map web site.

DB

Had one, didn't like it, sent it back. Display was slow, and the altitude
was reading 400ft below actual altitude. Could have been the PDA, but I
doubt it. I sent it back and bought a Garmin 296...Hope it works better for
you. Good luck.


"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
...
>I just ordered Anywhere Map with XM weather today using a wireless Compaq
>4700 PDA. It sounds like the display and features are a lot better than
>the Garmin 430/530 with XM weather, as far as the moving map, terrain
>avoidance, and weather displays go, although it is not IFR approved and it
>has no COM capability, of course. It is MUCH cheaper. I've been waiting
>for ground based radar in the cockpit for 20 years.
>
> I would like to hear comments from others who have tried this product. I
> have only seen the Aviation Consumer review and the Anywhere Map web site.
>
> DB
>

[Jon A.]

Was that some time ago? I've heard that they've improved the product
because too many people were complaining.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:20:17 -0500, > wrote:

>Had one, didn't like it, sent it back. Display was slow, and the altitude
>was reading 400ft below actual altitude. Could have been the PDA, but I
>doubt it. I sent it back and bought a Garmin 296...Hope it works better for
>you. Good luck.
>
>
>"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
...
>>I just ordered Anywhere Map with XM weather today using a wireless Compaq
>>4700 PDA. It sounds like the display and features are a lot better than
>>the Garmin 430/530 with XM weather, as far as the moving map, terrain
>>avoidance, and weather displays go, although it is not IFR approved and it
>>has no COM capability, of course. It is MUCH cheaper. I've been waiting
>>for ground based radar in the cockpit for 20 years.
>>
>> I would like to hear comments from others who have tried this product. I
>> have only seen the Aviation Consumer review and the Anywhere Map web site.
>>
>> DB
>>
>

[Stephen McNaught]

A couple thoughts on using a PDA with aviation moving map software,
regardless of which software you use. A PDA is a computer, so all "issues"
associated with computers affect PDAs. Some are better than others, have
more memory, faster processors, better screens, bluetooth, wifi, etc...
Performance will be based on the machine selected. Secondly, the GPS is not
part of the software itself. The software takes the information from the GPS
receiver, and displays it in whatever format the software was written. Some
GPS receivers were not built with aviation in mind, and for various reasons,
the altitude reported by the receiver to the software can be off, and the
software won't know, regardless of which software you use.

I think a dedicated unit like the Garmin 296 is a great setup, if you are
just going to use it as a moving map GPS, and don't need the other functions
of a PDA. I use a PDA with a Garmin GPS 10 Bluetooth GPS receiver, and the
atltitude, is usually within 10 feet of my indicated atltude on the
altimeter. The GPS 10 does have a couple magnets in it though. So you have
to be aware where you place it. (The magnets are designed so you could
"stick" the receiver on the hood of your car, or roof, etc.. )

"Jon A." > wrote in message
...
> Was that some time ago? I've heard that they've improved the product
> because too many people were complaining.
>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:20:17 -0500, > wrote:
>
> >Had one, didn't like it, sent it back. Display was slow, and the altitude
> >was reading 400ft below actual altitude. Could have been the PDA, but I
> >doubt it. I sent it back and bought a Garmin 296...Hope it works better
for
> >you. Good luck.
> >
> >
> >"Doodybutch" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>I just ordered Anywhere Map with XM weather today using a wireless
Compaq
> >>4700 PDA. It sounds like the display and features are a lot better than
> >>the Garmin 430/530 with XM weather, as far as the moving map, terrain
> >>avoidance, and weather displays go, although it is not IFR approved and
it
> >>has no COM capability, of course. It is MUCH cheaper. I've been waiting
> >>for ground based radar in the cockpit for 20 years.
> >>
> >> I would like to hear comments from others who have tried this product.
I
> >> have only seen the Aviation Consumer review and the Anywhere Map web
site.
> >>
> >> DB
> >>
> >
>

[Dave Butler]

Stephen McNaught wrote:
> A couple thoughts on using a PDA with aviation moving map software,

<snip>

> Some
> GPS receivers were not built with aviation in mind, and for various reasons,
> the altitude reported by the receiver to the software can be off, and the
> software won't know, regardless of which software you use.

<snip>

I can't let this go by without pointing out the biggest reasons for GPS altitude
to be perceived as inaccurate. These are all *systemic* reasons and have nothing
to do with the quality of the GPS receiver, or whether it was built with
aviation in mind.

- GPS position calculation in the vertical axis has less precision than in the
horizontal plane because of the geometry. A small error in measuring the time of
arrival of the GPS signal translates into a larger error in the vertical axis
than in the horizontal. Users' expectation that the altitude will be as precise
as the horizontal location is misplaced.

- GPS altitude is usually presented as the height above whatever ellipsoid that
the GPS uses as an earth model. This is not the same as the height above MSL. I
think the difference can be a few hundred feet.

[Nathan Young]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:02:22 -0400, Dave Butler > wrote:

>Stephen McNaught wrote:
>> A couple thoughts on using a PDA with aviation moving map software,
>
><snip>
>
>> Some
>> GPS receivers were not built with aviation in mind, and for various reasons,
>> the altitude reported by the receiver to the software can be off, and the
>> software won't know, regardless of which software you use.
>
><snip>
>
>I can't let this go by without pointing out the biggest reasons for GPS altitude
>to be perceived as inaccurate. These are all *systemic* reasons and have nothing
>to do with the quality of the GPS receiver, or whether it was built with
>aviation in mind.

Additional data follows...

Many years ago, prior to WAAS, and prior to SA being turned off,
altitude would regularly be several hundred feet different than
indicated on the altimeter.

However, with SA shut off, and a WAAS enabled receiver, the accuracy
in the Z domain is much improved. As an empirical reference - I have
a Garmin 295, which has WAAS capability. The delta between indicated
altitude and GPS altitude is always less than <500 feet, and usually
is less than 100 feet.

[Ron Natalie]

Paul kgyy wrote:

> The weather display is more detailed than what you get on the GNS430 at
> half the cost.
>

Has Garmin delivered the XM on the 430 yet? The ad on the back cover of
AOPAPilot that just arrived said soon. The MX20 has it.

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1114523965.843239@sj-nntpcache-5...
> - GPS position calculation in the vertical axis has less precision than in
the
> horizontal plane because of the geometry. A small error in measuring the
time of
> arrival of the GPS signal translates into a larger error in the vertical
axis
> than in the horizontal. Users' expectation that the altitude will be as
precise
> as the horizontal location is misplaced.

Trivia (AIC): When a ship travels through the Panama Canal, it actually
gains/loses about 25 feet from entry to exit depending on the direction of
travel. Sea Level is not 100.0% level.

[Paul kgyy]

I haven't actually seen GNS430 weather - just basing my statement on
available pixel count.

[Dan Luke]

> wrote:
> the altitude
> was reading 400ft below actual altitude.

Compared to what? Was that on the ground or in the air?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[John Clonts]

> Trivia (AIC): When a ship travels through the Panama Canal, it
actually
>gains/loses about 25 feet from entry to exit depending on the
direction of
>travel. Sea Level is not 100.0% level.

Of course, that's why we use MEAN sea level!
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas 672 MSL
N7NZ

[PPT33R]

Not yet. Garmin's materials explain the GDL69 display option, when
released for the GNS430/530 will have a limited display set until the
WAAS upgrades are implemented on those boxes.

Then again, I have been waiting for the WAAS upgrade on my 530 for over
a year past Garmin's original date of availability...

I went with NavAirWx. Experience with activation issues with the WxWorx
box is the shutdown routine. XM is supposed to be sending an automatic
firmware update for the boxes in the near future. For now, NavAir users
have had very good luck by being patient and using the software file
exit routine.

See you at OSH, Ron...

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
"Stephen McNaught" > wrote:
> A couple thoughts on using a PDA with aviation moving map software,
> regardless of which software you use. A PDA is a computer, so all "issues"
> associated with computers affect PDAs. Some are better than others, have
> more memory, faster processors, better screens, bluetooth, wifi, etc...
> Performance will be based on the machine selected. Secondly, the GPS is not
> part of the software itself. The software takes the information from the GPS
> receiver, and displays it in whatever format the software was written. Some
> GPS receivers were not built with aviation in mind, and for various reasons,
> the altitude reported by the receiver to the software can be off, and the
> software won't know, regardless of which software you use.


As far as "computers" go, it is my understanding that many/most MFD
manufacturers are basing their systems on Windows. Not sure what Garmin
uses, but I guarantee that it's a computer running software that has
bugs.

In my opinion, if you're going to use a Tablet or PDA for flight, it
needs to be a one-trick pony. Clean out everything that you don't need
for the moving map and weather, and don't install anything else. You do
need to be computer savvy, but you don't need to be a computer expert.
You do need to be able to follow directions (Control Vision provides
decent directions), as the PDA or Tablet systems do require some manual
coordination to get working--they are more complex than a one-button
startup, but they also offer greater functionality.

I purchased the AnywhereWx system a few weeks ago, and from what I've
seen so far, I am convinced that what everyone told me is true--weather
uplink is invaluable for IFR flight. The moving map is nice and the
system is very feature-rich.

If I was an exclusive VFR pilot, I would have stayed with my Garmin
GPSMAP 195. The PDA/Tablet systems offer capabilities not found in a
handheld GPS, and are continually updated and enhanced. I've never used
a Garmin 296, but I've seen them, and I would be hard-pressed to pay
that kind of money when I could get a PDA-based system with more
capability (and potential) for less money.



JKG

[[email protected]]

After spending many hours using a Pocket PC for navigation and weather,
I feel that PDA solutions can offer tremendous value but are not for
everyone.

If you are tech savvy and do not need the PDA for primary navigation
you can potentially save many thousands of dollars vs. the cost of
panel mount units and proprietary weather data feeds.
Keep in mind that the underlying PDA operating systems are imperfect
and can fail you at inconvenient times. Are you ready and willing to
perform soft resets, define Bluetooth connections, proactively manage
memory (i.e., don't run a bazillion applications at once), move
files, configure Internet properties and acclimate to a screen with
tiny fonts?
If not, go straight for a dedicated aviation handheld or panel unit and
get regional NEXRAD on your cell phone. That will keep you out of the
worst weather. All NEXRAD data is minutes-old information regardless of
how much you spend to get it and is not suitable for picking your way
through storms.

For missions that include hard IFR, I would want an in-panel display
with a satellite NEXRAD receiver and an independent storm scope. The
PDA would then make a good backup.

One benefit of having a PDA is the wide range of aviation specific
software applications. Mix and match to suite your needs without being
locked into the offerings of a single vendor. Much like choosing a
wine, start at the low end and work your way up. When you find one you
like, stop.

If you have a Pocket PC and an in-cockpit Internet connection
(satellite or 'cell' phone), you can get a moving map with NEXRAD
for a monthly cost equivalent to a couple quarts of Aeroshell 15w-50.

I cringe when I read about pilots spending thousands of dollars on PDA
based solutions. Hundreds is about right, not thousands. If that spare
change is burning a hole consider spending it on training or maybe a
2nd AI.

Search google using => Pocket PC Moving Map NEXRAD METAR
for some on-topic links.

[Paul kgyy]

Most people I've talked to about cell phone use in flight report no
signal above maybe 3000 AGL unless it's a satellite-based system. I've
tried mine at 5000 AGL and got nothing.

However, I do agree with your analysis of the PDA systems. I have one
and would never use it as primary.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
wrote:
> For missions that include hard IFR, I would want an in-panel display
> with a satellite NEXRAD receiver and an independent storm scope. The
> PDA would then make a good backup.

I'm sorry, I just don't see much difference between the PDA-based
systems and a dedicated handheld when it comes to primary
navigation--neither one is approved for primary navigation in IFR, but
when they're working, they are at least equals. The PDA beats the pants
off of the handheld when you add weather or geo-referenced approach
plates (for situational awareness.)

I'm not sure how weather uplink to a certified panel system would be any
different than weather uplink to a PDA or Tablet. As far as I know, the
weather providers and products provided are the same. Most of the
PDA-based products being marketed today rely on GlobalStar, WSI, or XM
for weather feeds.

To me, the NEXRAD part of weather uplink is only part of the weather
picture. Echo tops are invaluable (especially in the summer), and
METARs and TAFs are certainly helpful. Live TFR updates are also nice.
I have a StrikeFinder, so lightning data simply backs up the
StrikeFinder. Show me the handheld that can do all of that. Show me
the panel-mount that does it better for a competitive price.

You do not have to be a computer expert to use the PDA systems, but you
do have to pretty much dedicate them to one application, and that is the
moving map/weather application. Most Windows systems would run very
well if they were dedicated to only one application, not connected to
the Internet, and had nothing else installed on them.



JKG

[Andrew Gideon]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Trivia (AIC): When a ship travels through the Panama Canal, it actually
> gains/loses about 25 feet from entry to exit depending on the direction of
> travel. Sea Level is not 100.0% level.

I remember learning this as a kid and not understanding. Is this just tidal
difference? Otherwise, why doesn't it balance out?

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> TheÂ*PDA/TabletÂ*systemsÂ*offerÂ*capabilitiesÂ*notÂ*foundÂ* inÂ*a
> handheld GPS, and are continually updated and enhanced.

Such as?

I like the "electronic AI" feature that Controlvision offers. What else is
there that should be tempting me?

- Andrew

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> Such as?
>
> I like the "electronic AI" feature that Controlvision offers. What else is
> there that should be tempting me?


Well, the weather is the biggest thing for me. The AI capabilities are
also intriguing, though I haven't really researched those capabilities
much at this point. The ability to have all of the NACO IAPs at your
fingertips is another capability that may be useful. The Cones of
Safety is another nice feature that could be invaluable in an emergency.

And then, there's the price. $115/year gets me 28 day updates to the
database. A minimum of $30/month gets me basic weather and
up-to-the-minute TFR displays (via XM). $150/year gets me all of the
approach plates in the United States. Even if I don't want weather or
approach plates, I still pay $115/year (as opposed to $300 from Garmin)
to get the database updates.

Don't get me wrong, the current handhelds from Garmin and others are
very nice units. They are probably less fragile and represent a
simpler, more refined, and more compact solution for those who want to
grab something off the shelf and go at the touch of a button. But for
the IFR pilot, they lack enough functionality (primarily weather) to
make the premium price over the PDA units questionable at least.

The PDA units aren't for everyone, but if you do more than
weekend-warrior type stuff and fly in or around the weather routinely,
then you may want to consider some form of weather uplink, and the PDA
seems to be the most cost-effective route to accomplish that mission at
this point.


JKG

[Andrew Gideon]

Jonathan Goodish wrote:

> TheÂ*abilityÂ*toÂ*haveÂ*allÂ*ofÂ*theÂ*NACOÂ*IAPsÂ* atÂ*your
> fingertips is another capability that may be useful.

How well do these work? Inside the outer marker isn't where I want to be
scrolling around on a PDA?

There are larger devices which can display an entire plate, but they start
to look cumbersome to me (unless mounted into the panel, of course).

- Andrew

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> > TheÂ*abilityÂ*toÂ*haveÂ*allÂ*ofÂ*theÂ*NACOÂ*IAPsÂ* atÂ*your
> > fingertips is another capability that may be useful.
>
> How well do these work? Inside the outer marker isn't where I want to be
> scrolling around on a PDA?
>
> There are larger devices which can display an entire plate, but they start
> to look cumbersome to me (unless mounted into the panel, of course).


I don't have the plates, but have friends who do, so I've seen them.

My feeling is that they would be impractical unless you could take the
time to brief the approach while someone else flies the plane (another
pilot or autopilot). I usually fly with my wife, who is also an
instrument pilot, and have the approach briefed and the important
numbers noted on a note pad prior to initiation. One pilot flies while
the other navigates. In this scenario, the plates would probably work
well. We are still thinking of purchasing them, because that will
eliminate the chance that we will need a plate when we don't have a
printed copy. Current info that you have to scroll to see is better
than no info when you need it.

One thing you can do from the Pocket Plates software on the PC is print
the plates that you think you'll use, so you're just using the iPaq for
situational awareness on the approach. The plates can be
geo-referenced, so you will actually see your airplane follow the
approach. I know that you can also print the plates from the NACO web
site, but if you find yourself diverting somewhere at the last minute,
you may end up somewhere that you don't anticipate and suddenly don't
have the plate to get into the only airport within range that isn't
below minimums (personal experience speaking here, but thankfully I had
the plate).

There's no question that a Tablet PC is a more idea solution for the
plates, the moving map, the weather, etc. But it's also more expensive,
and much more difficult to accommodate in a small cabin.


JKG

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > Trivia (AIC): When a ship travels through the Panama Canal, it actually
> > gains/loses about 25 feet from entry to exit depending on the direction
of
> > travel. Sea Level is not 100.0% level.
>
> I remember learning this as a kid and not understanding. Is this just
tidal
> difference?

Something from the earth's rotation?

> Otherwise, why doesn't it balance out?
>

It's been YEARS since I read this and I don't recall the attributed any
reason to it but your explanation seems entirely plausible.

[PPT33R]

I am waiting for the first NTSB report regarding someone's attempt to
use a PDA-based AI in IMC... Then the inevitible lawsuits.

If you don't have an certified backup, practice partial-panel. I just
can't imagine risking my life on a Microsoft-driven PDA...

[Stephen McNaught]

It may have already happened. I hadn't heard of any law suits.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20021023X05372&ntsbno=IAD03FA005&akey=1


"PPT33R" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I am waiting for the first NTSB report regarding someone's attempt to
> use a PDA-based AI in IMC... Then the inevitible lawsuits.
>
> If you don't have an certified backup, practice partial-panel. I just
> can't imagine risking my life on a Microsoft-driven PDA...
>

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
"PPT33R" > wrote:

> I am waiting for the first NTSB report regarding someone's attempt to
> use a PDA-based AI in IMC... Then the inevitible lawsuits.
>
> If you don't have an certified backup, practice partial-panel. I just
> can't imagine risking my life on a Microsoft-driven PDA...

Hmmm... so you'd rather have nothing than a Microsoft-driven PDA with
solid state gyro as a backup. Interesting approach. Personally, I want
any available assistance that I can get in an emergency situation,
certified or not. Just because something isn't certified doesn't mean
that it's worse than something that is certified.

As far as I am aware, none of these PDA systems are certified for
anything, and the vendors make that clear. The same is true for the
handheld GPS units, but there are folks all over the place that use them
for enroute and approach guidance in IMC. They are no more "certified"
than the PDAs.



JKG

[Ron Natalie]

Stephen McNaught wrote:
> It may have already happened. I hadn't heard of any law suits.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20021023X05372&ntsbno=IAD03FA005&akey=1
>

That crash doesn't seem to involve the PDA based AI. The pilot seemed
to have been using the ControlVision GPS software to fly a GPS approach.
I don't see any indication that his basic flight instruments weren't
working. The general gist of the report is that the pilot descended
below an authrorized altitude either due to an altimeter missetting or
the fact that he had not properly pinpointed his location with respect
to the approach step down points.