Re: Uplink weather advice

[Richard Kaplan]

If you are planning to invest in an installed system then I agree the WSI
system is the best at this point. It is a "transmission" rather than
"request" system so therefore you can get continually updated weather data.
Even more importantly, WSI is an extremely well-established entity in the
weather data industry and therefore it is quite likely they will remain
around for the foreseeable future. Even more importantly, the data
displayed on their weather datalink system is basically the same data as you
can get on the web via www.intellicast.com so the learning curve to learn
how to interpret the data will be much less than with the other panel-mount
datalink providers.

I know of a client/student of mine who uses this system regularly and has
been very pleased, and I saw it installed in another student's plane and he
was similarly pleased with it.


Frankly, if I were to put an installed datalink system in my airplane at
this point then I would be most interested in the WSI system but the main
reason I have not done so yet is because I have an RDR-160 radar system in
my plane and the only current multi-function display which can interface
with that radar is the Avidyne display.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Dan Luke]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> If you are planning to invest in an installed system then I agree the WSI
> system is the best at this point. It is a "transmission" rather than
> "request" system so therefore you can get continually updated weather
data.

What, in your opinion, makes this system superior to Bendix/King's KMD 250,
KDR 510 uplink system? Both are transmission systems, one satellite, one
ground, how do they compare otherwise?

I was pleasantly surprised by B/K's system at OSH. It seemed easy to use and
the update speed ane resolution were very good. Its high baud rate seemed to
eliminate some of the software funny business that satellite based systems
resort to for getting images through their limited bandwith.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:
> One of the main problems with the Bendix/King system is that since it is
> ground-based, in many situations you cannot use it to get a weather
picture
> before takeoff or at "low" altitude ("low" depending on how near a
> transmission station is to where you are flying, of course). So it might
> not be available when you really want to use it.

Yes, that is a disadvantage of their system. But it looks like WSI's map is
not a moving map that will show the position and direction of the aircraft,
a big disadvantage, IMO - is that true?

> Another nice feature of the WSI system is that the data is the same as
what
> you see on the Internet at www.intellicast.com and it is also the same
data
> most of us see at FBOs across the country -- please correct me if I am
> wrong, but I do not think there is an Internet site to view the data in
the
> Bendix/King system.
> This is important because there is a learning curve in
> any radar or Nexrad system to learn how to interpret the graphics from the
> perspective of "Am I willing to fly thorugh that?" Most of us are
already
> quite familiar with radar images from Intellicast or from WSI computers at
> FBOs. With the Bendix/King system, you may not even be able to turn on
> your avionics on the ground to work through this learning curve.

They have the brochure on line at
http://www.bendixking.com/static/brochures/pdf/KDR510.pdf which shows the
MFD depicting NEXRAD base reflectivity. Looks just like what I see on
Intellicast. The unit also gives graphic METARS, etc.

My main concern about the satellite systems is still the bandwith question.
B/K had a pretty convincing demonstration of how other venders'
bandwith-saving software tricks could cause innacurate weather images. Also,
due to limited bandwidth, map resolution was not as good on the satellite
systems.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Richard Kaplan]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

> Yes, that is a disadvantage of their system. But it looks like WSI's map
is
> not a moving map that will show the position and direction of the
aircraft,
> a big disadvantage, IMO - is that true?

That is true if you use a laptop as the display for the WSI system -- then
then again, a laptop is not even a display option for the Bendix/King
system.

If you connect the WSI system to an MFD then the MFD already has your
position on the map.


> http://www.bendixking.com/static/brochures/pdf/KDR510.pdf which shows the
> MFD depicting NEXRAD base reflectivity. Looks just like what I see on
> Intellicast. The unit also gives graphic METARS, etc.

NEXRAD base reflectivity is the raw data from each data site; weather
datalink vendors then merge this data to create a composite national or
regional image. There is quite a bit of proprietary digital image
processing involved -- that is why, for example, weather on
www.intellicast.com looks different from weather on
www.theweatherchannel.com etc. The color coding can be different, some
vendors may choose to delete returns under 10dB or under 15dB, and some
vendors have different processes to remove ground clutter by either manual
or automated techniques.

The bottom line is that for the critical decision of deciding whether a
given area of Level 3 weather is convective or benign, it is a big help to
have experience with that particular source of weather data. The WSI system
lets you learn about their image processing on the ground via the Internet;
the Bendix/King system only lets you learn by trial-and-error in the air.


> My main concern about the satellite systems is still the bandwith
question.
> B/K had a pretty convincing demonstration of how other venders'
> bandwith-saving software tricks could cause innacurate weather images.
Also,
> due to limited bandwidth, map resolution was not as good on the satellite

I saw the demonstration too, and my impression was that this degree of
accuracy only mattered to a turboprop or jet pilot attempting to penetrate a
line of thunderstorms, in which case he ought to have high-power vertical
profiling radar as well -- not an issue likely to be relevant to most of the
piston IFR pilots on this group, myself included. Far more important to me
is the ability to get an accurate view of the weather on the ground before
takeoff and in the initial climb segment of my flight... the Bendix/King
system may be more accurate, but its data is simply unavailable for these
important portions of flight or during flight planning. If I can plan
early and request a routing to give me a good margin around the weather,
then it really does not matter if my image has slightly less resolution
compared with an alternate system which only works above a given altitude.

One of the best advantages of weather datalink is the ability to depart from
a small airport which has no weather resources and be able to make a
pre-flight decision on flying around/through areas of convective activity.
A satellite-based system such as WSI works great for this purpose at any
airport; the Bendix/King system will often be completely unavailable on the
ground in the same situation.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Tom S.]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:0c9eb7ec245c44683f14df2697f2042c@TeraNews...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > What, in your opinion, makes this system superior to Bendix/King's KMD
> 250,
> > KDR 510 uplink system? Both are transmission systems, one satellite, one
> > ground, how do they compare otherwise?
>
> One of the main problems with the Bendix/King system is that since it is
> ground-based, in many situations you cannot use it to get a weather
picture
> before takeoff or at "low" altitude ("low" depending on how near a
> transmission station is to where you are flying, of course). So it might
> not be available when you really want to use it.
>
> Another nice feature of the WSI system is that the data is the same as
what
> you see on the Internet at www.intellicast.com and it is also the same
data
> most of us see at FBOs across the country -- please correct me if I am
> wrong, but I do not think there is an Internet site to view the data in
the
> Bendix/King system. This is important because there is a learning curve
in
> any radar or Nexrad system to learn how to interpret the graphics from the
> perspective of "Am I willing to fly thorugh that?"

How is it (Nexrad) different?

> Most of us are already
> quite familiar with radar images from Intellicast or from WSI computers at
> FBOs. With the Bendix/King system, you may not even be able to turn on
> your avionics on the ground to work through this learning curve.

I suspect the Garmin 400/500 series with a GDL49 uplink and a subscription
to EchoFlight would be more expensive?? Or EchoFlight with their Flight
Cheetah?

http://www.garmin.com/products/gdl49/
http://www.echoflight.com/data_link.html

[Richard Kaplan]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...

> How is it (Nexrad) different?

Nexrad and radar are similar but Nexrad is better than radar at showing
intensities inside a given storm cell.

An isolated radar or Nexrad site base reflectivity return shows ground
clutter and other artifacts. For example, radar and Nexrad get less
sensitive at the fringes of a given radar site's coverage area.

When we talk of "Nexrad" we are usually talking about the composite national
Nexrad image. That image is created by digitally processing the images from
multiple sites into a national mosaic -- this process is usually partly
automated and partly done manually, but in any event there is some
subjectivity involved.

The end result is that a composite Nexrad image usually is easier to
interpret than comparing isolated radar sites. And Nexrad weather datalink
allows a pilot to view the big picture of the whole country rather than just
the coverage area of an airplane's onboard radar.

The primary disadvantage of Nexrad composite images compared with onboard
radar is that Nexrad provides no information regarding how high the
reflected precip goes. So what appears as precip on Nexrad may really be
no more than low-level mist; I have seen this often in flight.
Airplane-mounted radar does not have nearly the range of composite Nexrad
but does have the advantage that the pilot can tilt the radar's energy up or
down and thus -- with training -- calculate how high precipitation goes.

There is a solution to the problem of calculating Nexrad precip heights --
NOAA maintains a national network of doppler precip tops radar.
Unfortunately this government-generated precip tops radar data is not
available to FSS (!), but several subscription websites and some of the
weather datalink vendors do indeed have make available the precip tops radar
data.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Mark T. Mueller]

The GDL49 / EchoFlight solutions are actually much less expensive that
either WSI or the XM/WxWorx systems. However, after considerable research, I
have concluded the GDL49 is not currently a viable solution for me. The
download rate is an anemic 2800 baud, and the data resolution is in the 4 -
10 km range, far to coarse to make any but the most basic strategic weather
decisions. There is also the issue with the VHF band used for the datalink
is VERY close to your Com bands, so I have heard some grumblings about bad
installs and interference with the datalink from Com (i.e. don't key the
mike if you are trying to get wx data...) I have also heard horror stories
about data age and delays in the request/receive. No other system is
compatible with the 430/530 at this time. I have personally written off this
technology unless Garmin figures out a better compression scheme and they
solve the interference and data age problem.

Notice that Garmin has opted for the WxWorx/XM Radio solution for their new,
high dollar G1000 system, the GDL49 wasn't considered.

WSI certified boxes run in the $5K range plus install. I still cannot
understand how you can mount an "uncertified" box on an aircraft without an
STC or 337 approval. You will need an additional antenna, and cable runs.
WxWorx claims to have a "portable" system, but I still think you need one of
their antennas mounted and cables run, so as far as a "less expensive"
system, I doubt it.

All the "broadcast" systems to date have been in the $50/month range.
Echoflight has three different subscription plans, I think it was in the
$40/month range.

The King system using ground based towers has huge holes in coverage,
especially where I tend to fly, so it is useless for me, and I doubt a
ground based system will ever have utility for me.

The technology is here for quality broadcast weather, but it still looks
like it will be some time before a truely portable or certified system at a
reasonable cost is available. It really surprises me that I bought a Sirius
Satellite Radio for $100 that is 100% portable (including antenna that sits
on my glareshield) and plugs into my music jack and lighter outlet and pay
$12/month for 100 channels, but I can't get a 100% portable wx broadcast
system, and still have to shell out over $4K+ $50/month!!!! About the only
thing on the market that is reasonable and functional at the moment appears
to be AnywhereWx using a Globalstar sat phone, but there are issues with
interference from some models of the KT76 transponder.

Looks like it will be another year or two...



"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
> news:0c9eb7ec245c44683f14df2697f2042c@TeraNews...
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > What, in your opinion, makes this system superior to Bendix/King's KMD
> > 250,
> > > KDR 510 uplink system? Both are transmission systems, one satellite,
one
> > > ground, how do they compare otherwise?
> >
> > One of the main problems with the Bendix/King system is that since it is
> > ground-based, in many situations you cannot use it to get a weather
> picture
> > before takeoff or at "low" altitude ("low" depending on how near a
> > transmission station is to where you are flying, of course). So it
might
> > not be available when you really want to use it.
> >
> > Another nice feature of the WSI system is that the data is the same as
> what
> > you see on the Internet at www.intellicast.com and it is also the same
> data
> > most of us see at FBOs across the country -- please correct me if I am
> > wrong, but I do not think there is an Internet site to view the data in
> the
> > Bendix/King system. This is important because there is a learning curve
> in
> > any radar or Nexrad system to learn how to interpret the graphics from
the
> > perspective of "Am I willing to fly thorugh that?"
>
> How is it (Nexrad) different?
>
> > Most of us are already
> > quite familiar with radar images from Intellicast or from WSI computers
at
> > FBOs. With the Bendix/King system, you may not even be able to turn on
> > your avionics on the ground to work through this learning curve.
>
> I suspect the Garmin 400/500 series with a GDL49 uplink and a subscription
> to EchoFlight would be more expensive?? Or EchoFlight with their Flight
> Cheetah?
>
> http://www.garmin.com/products/gdl49/
> http://www.echoflight.com/data_link.html
>
>
>

[Richard Kaplan]

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

> The GDL49 / EchoFlight solutions are actually much less expensive that
> either WSI or the XM/WxWorx systems. However, after considerable research,
I

The portable XM/WxWorx system is MUCH cheaper (well, cheaper if I presume
you already own a laptop computer).. The system costs between $650 and $850
for the hardware plus $49/month for the subscription. The downside is that
there are lots of wires to carry around; the upside is that it is portable.


> WxWorx claims to have a "portable" system, but I still think you need one
of
> their antennas mounted and cables run, so as far as a "less expensive"

No, the antenna can go right on the glareshield just like a portable GPS
antenna.


> The technology is here for quality broadcast weather, but it still looks
> like it will be some time before a truely portable or certified system at
a

I agree there are some practical issues to the XMRadio/WxWorx system, but it
is indeed portable. My thought is that on the days when I know there will
be convective weather, it is worth putting up with the wires in order to
make the flight, but I suspect I will not use the system on non-convective
days.
> system, and still have to shell out over $4K+ $50/month!!!! About the only
> thing on the market that is reasonable and functional at the moment
appears
> to be AnywhereWx using a Globalstar sat phone, but there are issues with


XM/WxWorx is notably cheaper and definitely more practical than AnywhereWx
with a sat phone. AnywhereWx has just as many wires and it is a
reply/request model. One really nice feature of XM/WxWorx is that you can
"set it and forget it" -- once you set it up before flight, just glance at
the laptop every 5 minutes or so and the automatically updated weather will
be there. The hard part of the technology is there (satellite reception)...
I just wish they would combine the battery/display/receiver all into one box
like a portable GPS.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Mark T. Mueller]

> The portable XM/WxWorx system is MUCH cheaper (well, cheaper if I presume
> you already own a laptop computer).. The system costs between $650 and
$850
> for the hardware plus $49/month for the subscription. The downside is
that
> there are lots of wires to carry around; the upside is that it is
portable.
>

WOW! That's much less than I had heard. IF they actually MSRP for that,
EchoFlight is DEAD, and WSI will have to reduce the cost of their box and
make it up on the subscriptions...

Any idea when the WxWorx boxes will be available? I am ready now!

> No, the antenna can go right on the glareshield just like a portable GPS
> antenna.

I must have missed that one at OSH. The WxWorx reps were showing me
different antenna options, and a puck to throw on the glareshield was not
one of them. However, I would probably go for the COMDAT mast that combines
the XM and VHF Com into a single antenna. Cleaner install, and one for one
replacement on my turtleback. Hopefully Garmin will get its head out of its
ass and port this thing to the 430/530.

> I agree there are some practical issues to the XMRadio/WxWorx system, but
it
> is indeed portable. My thought is that on the days when I know there will
> be convective weather, it is worth putting up with the wires in order to
> make the flight, but I suspect I will not use the system on non-convective
> days.

I hope they work them out in short order. I would use it just about anytime.
My current plans are to drop a serial connection to my 530 so I can plug a
Fujitsu 4121 Tablet PC for GPS, then pull the WxWorx into the Tablet. The
4121 is daylight readable, and I can also use it as a "laptop" for work...
Flightprep offers subscriptions for pdf approach plates, and it would be a
great backup for that as well.

> XM/WxWorx is notably cheaper and definitely more practical than AnywhereWx
> with a sat phone. AnywhereWx has just as many wires and it is a
> reply/request model. One really nice feature of XM/WxWorx is that you can
> "set it and forget it" -- once you set it up before flight, just glance at
> the laptop every 5 minutes or so and the automatically updated weather
will
> be there. The hard part of the technology is there (satellite
reception)...
> I just wish they would combine the battery/display/receiver all into one
box
> like a portable GPS.

Thanks for the updates. I am sure SOMEONE will produce an integrated
solution that can be plugged into a laptop or Tablet PC... God knows the
market is there. The lines at OSH for all of the current providers was quite
long.


>
> --
> Richard Kaplan, CFII
>
> www.flyimc.com
>
>

[James M. Knox]

"Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in
:

> I bought a Sirius Satellite Radio for $100 that is 100% portable
> (including antenna that sits on my glareshield) and plugs into my
> music jack and lighter outlet and pay $12/month for 100 channels, but
> I can't get a 100% portable wx broadcast system, and still have to
> shell out over $4K+ $50/month!!!!

It needs a driver, and aviation isn't it. [The airlines don't care much -
heck, most of them don't have GPS yet; and there just aren't all that many
dollars in GA.] My big hope is the same as for GPS - the marine and sports
market. There are enough coastal small boats without weather radar to
force some competition. If they get interested, then we will see those
$200 portable color weather receiver/displays.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Lenny Sawyer]

I hope they ship. I ordered the entire bundle (receiver, cables,
antenna, and an AC adapter for home use) and I think it was $850. They
told me they would start shipping on 8/15. I hope that is the case!

I am also planing on using a tablet PC with WxWorx and JeppView for
approach plates...

Lenny Sawyer

Richard Kaplan wrote:

> "Mark T. Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Any idea when the WxWorx boxes will be available? I am ready now!
>
>
> Supposedly they will ship 8/15... I have a demo unit I used at my Forums
> talk at Oshkosh, so I can tell you it does indeed exist.
>
>
>>I hope they work them out in short order. I would use it just about
>
> anytime.
>
> Agreed... the main engineering obstacle ("they will never do it" kind of
> thing) was getting a portable antenna for a
> geosynchronos satellite.. .since they have done that, I would hope a Nexrad
> receiver could achieve the form factor of a
> portable GPS.
>
> Even better... why not a GPS/Nexrad portable combo? That would seem
> currently technologically possible.
>
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Dennis O'Connor]

There are orders of magnitude more personal boats cruising the world than GA
planes, and a significant percentage of those boats have at least one GPS...
They are the driving force behind the moving map stuff... The millions of
campers, hikers, etc., buy tens of thousands of the under $300 handhelds,
and they are the financial base upon which the GPS moving map industry sits,
currently... Us high end Moving Map / IFR Approach / WAAS airplane guys are
the tip of the commercial GPS iceberg...

Denny

[Richard Kaplan]

--"gwengler" > wrote in message
om...

> I am just repeating from what I read in the FLYING Magazine (Richard
> Collins). He said basically that datalink capability in the airplane
> ON THE GROUND is pretty much irrelevant since you get all the weather
> you want 2 minutes before engine start in the FBO or on your internet
> laptop. Makes sence to me...

That plan does not work if you are departing from a small airport without a
weather computer.

That plan also does not consider that many airports do not pay for the
5-minute WSI weather feed and instead have 20-30 minute old weather in their
flight planning room. Assume the FBO weather is 20 minutes old and it takes
10 minutes to startup and another 10 minutes to taxi and another 10 minutes
to receive in-flight Bendix/King weather and all of a sudden the pilot is
working with almost 1-hour-old weather data and maybe now has to call ATC to
ask for a weather deviation. Imagine how much easier it is to get
5-minute-old weather data anytime during taxi and climb out.

Also that plan ignores the time at low altitude when the weather data is
unavailable; in some regions of the country the Bendix/King system is
unavailable below 5,000 feet, and lots of IFR planes spend considerable time
below 5,000 feet when weather decisions are important.

Perhaps most important of all, the unavailability of the data on the ground
means the pilot loses the ability to use the weather datalink system as a
ground-based learning tool to correlate the picture out the window with the
weather depiction by that particular digital signal processing system.


Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[Klein Gilhousen]

On 9 Aug 2003 16:13:18 -0700, (Roger C) wrote:

>The partner in my aircraft just returned from the oshkosh show and is
>interested in getting one of the uplink weather systems for our
>aircraft.
>
>I just checked out the wsi system he is recommending at their website.
> I see several posts on a few of the systems here but has anyone flown
>with one? any advice?
>
>The page for wsi system is here i think
>
>http://www.wsi.com/fly/inflight/sitepromo.asp
>
>Thanks!

You may also want to take a look at Pilot My-Cast at
http://www.my-cast.com/pilot/. This works on several different
digital cellular services. I have subscribed to it (for $9.95/mo)
using my new LG 4400 phone on Verizon's cellular service.

Let's not re-start the old "you can't use a cell phone in a airplane"
thread.......but.......my experience is that it works where it works
and doesn't work where it doesn't. YOUR mileage may vary. ;-) It'll
probably work great on the ground near large cities and won't work at
all on the ground in the boondocks. But......in the boondocks, it'll
likely work ok in the air and won't work near large cities in the air.
Don't ask me how I know.

Klein
Bozeman, MT

[JerryK]

Don't forget a lot of cell phones now have a GPS chip in them to meet E911
requirements. There are tons more cell phones than boaters and campers.


"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> There are orders of magnitude more personal boats cruising the world than
GA
> planes, and a significant percentage of those boats have at least one
GPS...
> They are the driving force behind the moving map stuff... The millions of
> campers, hikers, etc., buy tens of thousands of the under $300 handhelds,
> and they are the financial base upon which the GPS moving map industry
sits,
> currently... Us high end Moving Map / IFR Approach / WAAS airplane guys
are
> the tip of the commercial GPS iceberg...
>
> Denny
>
>

[Paul Millner]

>> He said basically that datalink capability in the airplane
ON THE GROUND is pretty much irrelevant

Not if your cruise altitude is below the minimum reception altitude for your
area... which is never the case with a satellite based system.

Paul