XM question for Garmin 396/496 owers

"Mike" wrote in news:V2itk.971$w51.617@trnddc01:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Byctk.261087$TT4.35918@attbi_s22:

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest,
he's never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a
back-up to an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its
weather on several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a
Bonanza F33A), said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on a
long flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first
place. It's a fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long
cross-country flights much more doable and relaxing.


Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?

ATC can provide weather information as well, and now that the centers
have NEXRAD overlays, that information is even better.




Wel, we get it all acars, but in a light airplane, building a picture
through radio is more than enough. The only thing you need after that is
radar, and if you're flying a cherokee in that sort of weather and relying
on some tandy toy , well,. I don't have to tell you..


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in news:V2itk.971$w51.617@trnddc01:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Byctk.261087$TT4.35918@attbi_s22:

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest,
he's never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a
back-up to an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its
weather on several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a
Bonanza F33A), said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on a
long flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first
place. It's a fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long
cross-country flights much more doable and relaxing.


Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?

ATC can provide weather information as well, and now that the centers
have NEXRAD overlays, that information is even better.




Wel, we get it all acars, but in a light airplane, building a picture
through radio is more than enough. The only thing you need after that is
radar, and if you're flying a cherokee in that sort of weather and relying
on some tandy toy , well,. I don't have to tell you..

I agree. I did long X-countries for years with nothing more than my
eyeballs, a strikefinder, and a radio. Onboard weather is nice, but if the
496 craps the bed, I'm not going to cancel the trip. I don't know of any
instance were XM weather ever saved anyone's life and in fact it causes some
to get into more trouble than they can deal with.

"Mike" wrote in news:xtitk.972$w51.377@trnddc01:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Mike" wrote in
news:V2itk.971$w51.617@trnddc01:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Byctk.261087$TT4.35918@attbi_s22:

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit,
I seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly
with frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be
honest, he's never had any complaints with his either -- he uses
it as a back-up to an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the
396 and its weather on several flights to and from AZ to Little
Rock, AR (in a Bonanza F33A), said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on
a long flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first
place. It's a fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long
cross-country flights much more doable and relaxing.


Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?

ATC can provide weather information as well, and now that the
centers have NEXRAD overlays, that information is even better.




Wel, we get it all acars, but in a light airplane, building a picture
through radio is more than enough. The only thing you need after that
is radar, and if you're flying a cherokee in that sort of weather and
relying on some tandy toy , well,. I don't have to tell you..

I agree. I did long X-countries for years with nothing more than my
eyeballs, a strikefinder, and a radio. Onboard weather is nice, but
if the 496 craps the bed, I'm not going to cancel the trip. I don't
know of any instance were XM weather ever saved anyone's life and in
fact it causes some to get into more trouble than they can deal with.



Well, that's definitely the impression i got of Jay's approach ot using
this stuff. These toys are great things, but if you haven't got basic
skills underneath it, you're lost.

Bertie

Mike wrote:

I agree. I did long X-countries for years with nothing more than my
eyeballs, a strikefinder, and a radio. Onboard weather is nice, but if the
496 craps the bed, I'm not going to cancel the trip. I don't know of any
instance were XM weather ever saved anyone's life and in fact it causes some
to get into more trouble than they can deal with.

I've noticed the opposite effect. I fly long cross countries (~700+ nm)
every year with a few buddies that have 396/496 onboard. I've stuck with my
trusty old Garmin 195. They seemed to get spooked by the weather displays
when the typical lines of afternoon thunderstorms start cutting loose. For
the last couple of years, they've been making precautionary landings to wait
out weather, based on their displays. I've continued along, as I've done
for many years, studying the weather out the windows and making the usual
detours around the scary stuff (we're all VFR pilots). Since they got XM,
I've been beating them to our destinations by hours, and in a few cases an
entire day. Even when I call them on the radio and tell them it's not that
bad, they still won't budge.

Maybe it's a question of interpretation of the displays, but it's not just
my two buddies that have the tendency to get on the ground because of what
they see with XM. I've gotten unsolicted XM based advice several times (just
last month, in fact) when stopping at an airport for fuel. When I actually
launch, the weather is almost always better than the gloomy XM pilot's
prediction.

I'm not against having weather in the cockpit. I just figure that, as a
VFR pilot, what I see out the window is what really matters. As long as I
have an out, I'll just continue to fly up to the weather and check it out in
person. Perhaps when cockpit weather becomes cheap enough for this cheap
*******, it'll show up in my cockpit :-))

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

I've noticed the opposite effect. I fly long cross countries (~700+ nm)
every year with a few buddies that have 396/496 onboard. I've stuck with
my
trusty old Garmin 195. They seemed to get spooked by the weather
displays
when the typical lines of afternoon thunderstorms start cutting loose.
For
the last couple of years, they've been making precautionary landings to
wait
out weather, based on their displays. I've continued along, as I've done
for many years, studying the weather out the windows and making the usual
detours around the scary stuff (we're all VFR pilots). Since they got
XM,
I've been beating them to our destinations by hours, and in a few cases an
entire day. Even when I call them on the radio and tell them it's not
that
bad, they still won't budge.

Our experience has been diametrically opposed. In our "pre-XM" days we made
many (ultimately pointless) precautionary landings whilst on long x-country
flights -- and haven't made a single one since getting on-board weather
three years ago. To the contrary, we have made a whole bunch of flights
that would simply not have happened before XM, period.

When it comes to weather, there is simply no substitute for knowing what's
over the horizon. And a picture (even the dinky picture that the 496
presents) is truly worth a thousand words.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Byctk.261087$TT4.35918@attbi_s22:

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest,
he's never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a
back-up to an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its
weather on several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a
Bonanza F33A), said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on a
long flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first
place. It's a fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long
cross-country flights much more doable and relaxing.


Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?


Bertie

Ever try to raise flight service on a busy day when CB's are popping up all
around? Beyond that, when you're a thousand miles from home and the FSS is
calling out weather boundaries using landmarks you've never heard of, it is
pretty hard to visualize what in the heck they are talking about.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:H7ktk.261615$TT4.34592@attbi_s22:

I've noticed the opposite effect. I fly long cross countries
(~700+ nm)
every year with a few buddies that have 396/496 onboard. I've stuck
with my
trusty old Garmin 195. They seemed to get spooked by the weather
displays
when the typical lines of afternoon thunderstorms start cutting
loose. For
the last couple of years, they've been making precautionary landings
to wait
out weather, based on their displays. I've continued along, as I've
done for many years, studying the weather out the windows and making
the usual detours around the scary stuff (we're all VFR pilots).
Since they got XM,
I've been beating them to our destinations by hours, and in a few
cases an entire day. Even when I call them on the radio and tell
them it's not that
bad, they still won't budge.

Our experience has been diametrically opposed.


That's because you're an idiot.


Bertie

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:Byctk.261087$TT4.35918@attbi_s22:

Which Garmin GPS do you have, Shirl?

I have the old 296. It does everything I need it to, but I admit, I
seldom do long x-cs to unknown places. A friend I used to fly with
frequently has a 396 -- I saw how the weather works. To be honest,
he's never had any complaints with his either -- he uses it as a
back-up to an old, panel-mounted GPS and relied on the 396 and its
weather on several flights to and from AZ to Little Rock, AR (in a
Bonanza F33A), said it was great.

And it is. There is simply NO substitute for on-board weather on a
long flight, which is why I bought the danged thing in the first
place. It's a fantastic enhancement to safety, and makes long
cross-country flights much more doable and relaxing.


Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?


Bertie

Ever try to raise flight service on a busy day when CB's are popping
up all around?


Sure.

Beyond that, when you're a thousand miles from home
and the FSS is calling out weather boundaries using landmarks you've
never heard of, it is pretty hard to visualize what in the heck they
are talking about.

Well, I manage somehow most days...

In th eairplaniers, we have acars, but seldom use it for anything other
than destination and alterante weather.

I'm not saying that they're useless in themselves, I'm sayin that Jay's
idiotic approach to their use is idiotic.
He's attempting to replace good operating practices with technology.
He said as much last time this discussion came up.

That never works well.


Bertie



Bertie

Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?


Bertie

Ever try to raise flight service on a busy day when CB's are popping up
all around? Beyond that, when you're a thousand miles from home and the
FSS is calling out weather boundaries using landmarks you've never heard
of, it is pretty hard to visualize what in the heck they are talking
about.

Kyle, you're wasting your breath. Until you (and others) stop treating this
"Bertie" like a pilot (as if "he" would have any clue what flight service
is), he will continue to grace this group with his brilliant "fjukkwit"
commentary. Ignore him (as do most of us) and this troll-of-trolls will
ultimately go away...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
Ercoupe N94856
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:g_ntk.317017$yE1.219587@attbi_s21:

Ever heard of Flight service, fjukkwit?


Bertie

Ever try to raise flight service on a busy day when CB's are popping
up all around? Beyond that, when you're a thousand miles from home
and the FSS is calling out weather boundaries using landmarks you've
never heard of, it is pretty hard to visualize what in the heck they
are talking about.

Kyle, you're wasting your breath. Until you (and others) stop
treating this "Bertie" like a pilot (as if "he" would have any clue
what flight service is), he will continue to grace this group with his
brilliant "fjukkwit" commentary. Ignore him (as do most of us) and
this troll-of-trolls will ultimately go away...


Bwawhahwha

Guess again, fjukktard.


Bertie