![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. " |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|