The International Cessna^® 170 Association

I've been using XM weather for a couple of years now, and I find that having a color image of the weather in the cockpit with you, in real time, is a quantum leap from what you can have in your head based on looking at a terminal before takeoff and talking to flightwatch in the air. It's not just an improvement in information, it's something different that will contribute to flight safety, IMHO. Whether it's worth $30 or $50 per month is a personal decision, but if you have it, it does make a positive difference.

For example, a couple of years ago I was flying home from La Crosse, WI, up the Mississippi to Saint Paul. I knew there would be storms across my track, and I would need to head a little bit to the east to stay ahead of them. Not hard to to do visually, but it helped to have the full picture. Once I got around them I could see that there was a cell moving in over my distination airport. So I diverted a liitle bit north to Osceola, which was going to remain in the clear, and there I sat for 45 minutes or so, until I could see on the NEXRAD that the storm had passed Lake Elmo. Osceola didn't have a weather terminal that I could get access to, so it was very helpful to have my own source. Yes, I could have made hourly calls to FSS as the METARs came out, but my home airport didn't have a METAR at that time, so my wait would have been longer than necessary.

I find that the $30/month package (actually they bill $90 plus taxes every 3 months) is all you really need in real-time. I have never found it worthwhile to buy the premium package, except when I was flying to Alaska and wanted radar coverage in Canada. (For $30/month you only get NEXRAD radar for the continental US and Puerto Rico. Pricing and services info is at http://www.xmwxweather.com/aviation/dat ... icing.html). For $30/month you don't get lightning strikes, echo tops or storm tracks.

One caution: NEXRAD images can be up to 15 minutes old on this system, because they take up to 10 minutes of radar scanning to build up the full image, and then they are only broadcast by XM every 5 minutes. Also, they project all altitudes down to a 2D image. So at best they give only an approximation of where precipitation is happening, the accuracy depending a lot on how fast the storms are building and moving. So it's definitely a BAD IDEA to try to use this display to fly close to cells or try to fly between nearby cells. Even with the "real-time" imagery, you want to be anywhere from 5 to 20 miles away from the heavier(non-green) areas of precipitation, depending on where you are and what you know about the storm system you're looking at.

I have used a 496 for several cross country trips last year and absolutly loved the in cockpit weather capability. As for choosing the new Aera or the older 496, I am leaning toward the Aera because it seems to be much more compact. The 496 is rather large and heavy. The Aera's chasis comes from Garmins Zumo motorcycle design, and is said to be waterproof as well. On the AOPA forums there have been some rather lengthy discussions on the product, and they all seem to agree it is a winner. Kyle, they even said the units touch screen does work well even with gloves on. ( I think this is why they used the Zumo design, rather than the Nuvi as its base.) Someone needs to buy one and give us a full PIREP. I think I may have to wait until OSH to get mine.

I'd still love to hear comments from someone who's seen the 510 and compared it to the 560....

Yes, I know the 510 doesn't have the taxi diagrams nor the AOPA airport directory (I don't care - mine's in the plane all the time). The only other difference I see is the terrain resolution. I'm thinking it can't be that different - Red is Red on the unit, right?

Are there differences in the processor? Anthing else?

My thoughts are that I cannot justify the extra money for the 560 and would appreciate your confirmations (or contrary thoughts).

Its a bit humorous to me that the majority of this thread hasn't been about the portables themselves, but of XM weather. I too thought that XM was just a gee-whiz gadget ... and then I used it. The fact that you can reach out and get METARs, TAFs, and the like is phenomenal. Flying a G1000 across the midwest, it helped skirt a line of summer ugliness. And now that I'm done saying that, I'll say that I recently bought an Aera 500 with no XM capability. Why?

BECAUSE XM DOESN'T WORK IN ALASKA, WHERE WE NEED IT MOST. Getting weather when you're out in the boonies is darn near impossible without a satphone. If XM could just come up higher off the horizon, I'd pay for that capability.

I was going to buy a 296, but the Aera does all the same things (and more) with a bigger screen and for less money. Very surprising were the good values in the box -- a yoke mount and auto mount (both) come standard. The only add-on I did was to buy an external charger with a battery. A battery was $40 alone, with the charger $59. Again, money well spent.

The touch screen is about as I expected. Its not perfect by any stretch, but it works ok. Dollars-per-performance, I think its the best deal on the market right now.

My anywhere map ATC shows each metar reporting station as a small 1/8" square box with a diagonal line. The upper left is the vis and the lower right is the ceiling. They are color coded for VFR, MVR, IFR and less than IFR. You can tap on each square and get the full metar in a small window. It is great to zoom out to the 200-300 or even 500 mile range and have a sudo-WX depiction chart superimposed with the nexrad weather on your route of flight. The big advantage has been having meter info available at a touch to go along with the nexrad information.

Going into OSH this year, we followed the last line of wx that passed the airfield on Wednesday afternoon. We were able to see the line of showers (yellow and orange) on the nexrad and it was obvious that it would pass through OSH within 30-40 minutes. We were SSE of OSH in northern IL just west of Chicago at decision time. The question was do we land in front of the line and let it pass, or cut behind it and follow it into OSH. The little metar boxes clearly showed VFR conditions in front of the line and IFR ceilings and visibilities well west of the line. The situation had change significantly in the 1hr30 since I had checked the radar prior to departing Decature IL for our final leg to OSH. The line in question had not even developed prior to departure. Yes, I could have gotten this info from Flight Watch, but I was able to see it all in real time, and assess the situation is less time than it would have taken to ask center for a freq change to Flight Watch.(we have only one comm and were getting flight following). We landed in front of the line, got gas, and enjoyed an uneventful 30 minute flight to Fisk and into OSH.

I can think of 2 other specific examples where my plan changed while airborne when the weather situation changed significantly from the Radar picture just prior to departure. The Xm WX allowed us to make decisions very early and saved significant time overall. A great tool and worth the monthly subscription price.

Oh yea, June LOVES the XM radio on those long legs - I do too!

George,the AWM products have some advantages over the Garmin products but they also have their limitations. The biggest advantages for me are the initial costs, inclusion of private airfields in the data base (your strip will not be shown on the Garmin if it is not in the AOPA database. My strip is not in AOPA) and the price of terrain, obstacle and airspace data updates. The AWM has a lifetime subscription for the about same price as one year of data from Garmin. If you are curious call me and I'll share my experiences.

I use a Tom Tom GPS in my car that has a touch screen, and I find it difficult sometimes, while driving on rough roads, to touch a particular part of the screen accurately. Sometimes I miss the spot and have to back up and start over. Has anyone experienced this problem with a touch screen GPS in an airplane during turbulence?

John

I have a Bendix/King AV8OR with touch screen. What I do (in turbulence) is grab the unit like I would hold it if it wasn't in the rack. While holding it like this I can use my index finger to accurately touch the screen while my other fingers keep my hand from wandering from the turbulence.

I just got my hands on a Garmin 560 for about 10 minutes. Not in the air and not with gloves on. I was impressed and for the operations I tried it worked as well as my Nuvi I use on my motorcycle. Guess I need to wait for another friend to by a 510 so we can compare them.

I participated in an Aviation Consumer GPS survey and they sent me this copy of the report:

I have used the XM option on the 396 for several years now. It's definitely worth it to me. I use some portion of the service on every flight whether just to listen to the 50's channel or one of the other 200+ channels or to self-brief on current conditions instead of trying to get useable info out of FSS while they are preaching "don't go, you're gonna die". I can't remember the last time I talked to FSS in the air. Don't need to.

The radar is current enough to show you intensity and movement of cells and holes in lines of weather where it's safe to go thru. The time-lapse feature shows movement of cells so you can pick the best course around them. METARs/TAFs/TFRs are as current as FSS info and you don't have to interpret what someone else is trying to tell you. The most useful feature to me is the winds aloft forecast which shows winds at 3000, 6000, etc. Winds are displayed on the map with direction and speed so you can find the best altitude for your trip. I find them to be fairly accurate.

I also use it when driving when there is severe weather. I have re-routed several times when strong cells are moving toward where I'm going.

I have a friend with an old Conquest and a brand new Citation. He uses the 496 on every flight and also has it for back-up if all else fails. As good as the new glass panel stuff is, he says it still is reassuring to have the Garmin. I agree.

You can change the service to stand-by when you are not going to use it for awhile then re-activate later at no charge (if I remember correctly).

TIC170A member Dennis Hoffman just installed one of these in his 170: http://ifly.adventurepilot.com/Home.aspx. He doesn't have much experience with it yet, but so far it looks pretty interesting. The novelty of this one is that it overlays your position on a sectional chart display.

Broke down and bought the 510 at OSH. Still have my trusty 196 over on the co-pilot's side, but I"m already liking the 510. The weather was useful on the first flight back from OSH. We got held up due to the Roush crash and had to land short and wait out a heavy rain shower.

I had the unit on the dash mount but this weekend will switch it over to the suction cup on the left side. I was concerned about the touch screen but quickly adapted to that and really like it now. Also like the color and simplicity of use.

The unit locks on satellites much better and quicker than the old 196. The WX does take 3-5 minutes to lock on, though.

I also like the slimmer profile of the unit. Only concern is that it could be just a tad brighter yet in bright sunlight - though much better than the greyscale.

The audio alerts are still heard even with the headsets.

While I still think Garmin is overpriced, I do like their product.

George,

I'm not sure what sort of jet's you operate but a handheld GPS may be useless as a backup (without an external antenna) if your aircraft has heated windows. Additionally, I recommend trying the safe taxi feature before making a decision about its value. Ask a buddy who operates a new Garmin or Honeywell EFIS equipped jet!

mekstrand wrote:George,

I'm not sure what sort of jet's you operate but a handheld GPS may be useless as a backup (without an external antenna) if your aircraft has heated windows. Additionally, I recommend trying the safe taxi feature before making a decision about it's value. Ask a buddy who opeartes a new Garmin or Honeywell equipped jet!

I know your comment was directed at George but I can comment with some experience. The helicopter I flew had heated windows. We navigated everywhere for over two years with a handheld Garmin product not as good as those available today, with very little trouble. All we had to do was tape the auxiliary antenna to the inside of the chin bubble and in this case the antenna was mounted nearly vertical, pointed at the horizon, and not the sky. It never missed a beat as far as navigation goes. XM weather is another story. For that to work we had to tape that antenna to the door window sill pointed up at the one XM satellite over Texas. That worked about 3/4 of the time the other 1/4 it just couldn't pick up the signal.

I'll bet your jet with heated windows has a side window that is not heated and the GPS will work specially in a pinch. Problem is depending on your job under 135 or 121 you probably don't have the freedom to tape a gizmo to the side window. Ours was/is approved under our approved portable electronics devices list.

As for safe taxi and Garmin or Honeywell panel mount equipment. Safe taxi is only as good as the data regardless of hand held or panel mount and how fast and completely that information can be understood by the pilot.

As far as handheld verses panel mounts it has been my first hand experience flying the best of both is that a handheld will out perform a panel mount 9 times out of 10. How you say can a $1200 handheld out perform $35,000 worth of equipment. Easy the panel mount stuff is cumbersome to use, slower because it is generally older electronically and doesn't display information as well an so the user gets less useful information out of the system than they do a handheld.

My experience is flying mostly VFR under 1500 agl day and night in all sorts of weather where terrain and obstacle systems mean something. I accept the less useful and harder to use panel mount equipment because the FAA will not allow IFR flight by handheld and they won't allow a hand held to direct an auto pilot.

Add my name to the list that like the 510. I borrowed a 510 with XM weather for this years convention trip and once again the XM weather would have paid for itself had I paid for it and not borrowed it.

The first time I actually operated the 510 was in flight. At first I found it a bit of a pain because naturally I hadn't read a single instruction nor had I even practiced with it. Took about have way across PA (about an hour) to figure most of it out and after aligning the touch screen (an important step) got use to that feature. I'd say for a very few operations like trying to pick an object on the screen to display information about, the old rocker like on the 496 is superior. Your finger is just not pointy enough. But with some practice this is overcome and for most other operations the touch screen coupled with the speed of the unit and the software, is as good as and maybe better than the rocker.

I have yet to compare it to the 560 which another friend has and when I do I'll report whether I think the extra money is worth it.