GPS 396 XM WX Subscription question...

[john smith]

For those of you who have purchased the GPS 396, which of the two
subscriptions are you purchasing? Aviator LT/$29.99 or Aviator/$49.99?

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:

> For those of you who have purchased the GPS 396, which of the two
> subscriptions are you purchasing? Aviator LT/$29.99 or Aviator/$49.99?

I've used the higher priced subscription for nearly two years and will keep
it when I get the 396. The extra features are well worth the extra cost,
IMO, especially the lightning, surface analysis and winds aloft.

http://www.wxworx.com/aviation/service_pricing.php

If WSI would get its butt in gear and work with other GPS mfr's to provide a
real alternative, I believe WxWorx prices would come down.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Dave Butler]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "john smith" wrote:
>
>>For those of you who have purchased the GPS 396, which of the two
>>subscriptions are you purchasing? Aviator LT/$29.99 or Aviator/$49.99?
>
> I've used the higher priced subscription for nearly two years and will keep
> it when I get the 396. The extra features are well worth the extra cost,
> IMO, especially the lightning, surface analysis and winds aloft.

Dan,

That's an interesting and surprising answer. I have no experience with the XM
service but anticipate using it on the 396 soon. I had figured I would use the
lower price subscription.

Does lightning data give you more/better information about where the convection
is? I would expect to see the lightning wherever you see the most intense
precipitation, so having precipitation intensity and lightning data would be at
least somewhat redundant. No?

I see the value of surface analysis in preflight planning, but not airborne. It
really doesn't change very fast, and I'm going to be making a pit stop before
any changes become important. No?

With winds aloft, again, it seems to have preflight value, but limited value
once airborne.

Pretend you're the XM sales rep and convince me I should go for the high-price
spread.

Thanks.

Dave

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article <1123617945.304661@sj-nntpcache-5>, Dave Butler >
wrote:
> With winds aloft, again, it seems to have preflight value, but limited value
> once airborne.
>
> Pretend you're the XM sales rep and convince me I should go for the
> high-price
> spread.


I've had the high-priced version for a few months, and I am thinking of
dropping down to the Lite. I have a StrikeFinder, so lightning isn't
important to me (and the WxWorx lightning is not a good substitute
anyway). Echo tops can help judge the trends of precip echos, but if
something is heavy I'm probably going to steer clear anyway. Storm cell
tracking would be useful for identifying intensity, cell tops, and
direction so that you don't alter course into a cell. All of the
"extra" stuff in the full subscription is useful, but I suspect that the
Lite subscription is enough for most folks who fly down low.

When the weather uplink has saved me from trouble, it's been NEXRAD and
METARs that have done the saving, in combination with my StrikeFinder.

You can apparently switch between the full and Lite versions without
penalty.


JKG

[Dan Luke]

"Dave Butler" wrote:
>>>For those of you who have purchased the GPS 396, which of the two
>>>subscriptions are you purchasing? Aviator LT/$29.99 or
>>>Aviator/$49.99?
>>
>> I've used the higher priced subscription for nearly two years and
>> will keep it when I get the 396. The extra features are well worth
>> the extra cost, IMO, especially the lightning, surface analysis and
>> winds aloft.
>
> Dan,
>
> That's an interesting and surprising answer. I have no experience with
> the XM service but anticipate using it on the 396 soon. I had figured
> I would use the lower price subscription.

That was my plan, but I thought, "I'll try the full package for 3 months
and then drop back to the cheaper one." That was two years ago and I
still have the whole deal. I just can't bring myself to give up all
that wonderful data.

> Does lightning data give you more/better information about where the
> convection is? I would expect to see the lightning wherever you see
> the most intense precipitation, so having precipitation intensity and
> lightning data would be at least somewhat redundant. No?

No. There's often heavy precip with no sparks in it, especially in
winter. I must caution that you should be careful using *any* weather
gear to cut too close to heavy weather, whether you see indications of
lightning or not. I have never used a Stormscope or Strikefinder, but
it seems to me they would be better for real time, close up monitoring
of convective activity. Still, the lightning data in WxWorx gives me an
idea of which storms have the real rough stuff in them.

> I see the value of surface analysis in preflight planning, but not
> airborne. It really doesn't change very fast, and I'm going to be
> making a pit stop before any changes become important. No?

I've had the picture change pretty drastically in flight, but only once.
I gotta admit this is something I love just for the coolness factor,
though it is nice to have it to remind me of where the fronts are.

> With winds aloft, again, it seems to have preflight value, but limited
> value once airborne.

I use this a lot to make adjustments to my plans while in flight. It's
great to have a graphical representation of the winds available with the
push of a button instead of a cryptic printout on the clipboard.

> Pretend you're the XM sales rep and convince me I should go for the
> high-price spread.

Well, the LT product is pretty damned good; I could certainly get by
with it. But all that other stuff is just too cool for me to give up.
The satellite mosaic is very handy when you're VFR and wondering where
there's a hole in the clouds. Why don't you try both and see what you
like?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Darrel Toepfer]

Dan Luke wrote:

>>I would expect to see the lightning wherever you see
>>the most intense precipitation, so having precipitation intensity and
>>lightning data would be at least somewhat redundant. No?
>
> No. There's often heavy precip with no sparks in it, especially in
> winter. I must caution that you should be careful using *any* weather
> gear to cut too close to heavy weather, whether you see indications of
> lightning or not. I have never used a Stormscope or Strikefinder, but
> it seems to me they would be better for real time, close up monitoring
> of convective activity. Still, the lightning data in WxWorx gives me an
> idea of which storms have the real rough stuff in them.

Agreed, yesterday here in SC-LA we had a heavy downpour, the boomers
went away during that period and most frequently do. Its the fringes
that have the lighting, wind and hail...