GPS/XM Weather Question

Peter R. wrote:
Ron Natalie wrote:

I've got XM on the MX20

Ron, what are you using for your XM receiver, a Garmin x96 or some other
receiver?

It's a GDL69A. XM weather plus XM radio audio (gotta have something to
listen to the ball games on now that I ditched the ADF).


Also, what weather products are available on the MX20 using the XM
receiver? NEXRAD, TAFs, and METARs, obviously, but what about lightning,
satellite images, winds aloft, and pireps?

It's got Lightning and winds aloft for sure. I'm pretty sure it
doesn't have satellite images. I've not dirlled down into the text
screens too much other than METAR, but I know it has METAR, TAF, and
TFR's (there's maybe a half dozen things in the list).

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

For those of you who have XM weather integrated with your GPS.

Do you use the weather information to paint a big picture of what's going
on around you. I.E. "If I fly 50 miles thataway, it looks like I'll be
able to circumvent this line of storms."

Yep.

Or, do you us it on a more detailed level. E.G. "There is a two mile
corridor between these two cells, I'm gonna buzz right between 'em."

Maybe not that tight. It depends on the size and movement of the cells and
whether they're growing ir dying.

Realistically, since there is a delay between when the radar picture was
taken and when you got the information, how close are you comfortable
cutting things when relying on XM weather?

The best I can tell you is "it depends." I've used XM to do a lot of
zig-zagging among air mass CBs. I would not use it to try to sneak through
a hole in a squall line.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jim Burns" wrote:

My experience is that XM makes more flights possible and manageable, but
it is in no way an excuse to get any closer to thunderstorms than you
would when you can see them out your window.

Well put.

But I would add that XM's best advantage is giving you a picture of the CBs
you *can't* see out your window.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Agreed. I also think that it's much more beneficial in IFR to have a second
source of weather such as a Stormscope or such to help delineate between
rain and actual thunderstorms.
Jim

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Jim Burns" wrote:

My experience is that XM makes more flights possible and manageable, but
it is in no way an excuse to get any closer to thunderstorms than you
would when you can see them out your window.

Well put.

But I would add that XM's best advantage is giving you a picture of the
CBs you *can't* see out your window.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Kyle Boatright" wrote:

All answers are welcome. I'm simply trying to get a feel for the
usefulness of this kind of technology.

It would be difficult to overestimate it, IMO.

I tend to gush about it, because I live in one of the most
thunderstorm-afflicted areas of the U. S. To me, it is the greatest thing
since GPS. Put the two together, and the cross country utility of a light
airplane takes a quantum jump.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I am fortunate to have XM Nexrad, stormscope, and onboard radar. I have used
these in combination, including night IMC. They all provide valuable
information, and in combination give a lot of information.

In particular, the combination of Stormscope and Nexrad overlayed are
especially useful. However, up close and for use for navigating between
cells, especially at night or in IMC, nothing beats the on board radar for
real time situational awareness.

Dan Luke wrote:
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:

Nexrad XM datalink...is a strategic tool, not a
tactical tool.

That is the conventional wisdom, but I suspect it comes more from lawyers
than from pilots experienced with using datalinked NEXRAD.

I used the same wording and I have XM weather and have used it.


I use XM NEXRAD tactically all the time. If there's a growing cell 15 miles
ahead, I will use the NEXRAD picture to decide whether to go left or right
around it based on its history and the location of other cells beyond it.
That's tactical, to me, and it's the best thing about having satellite
weather aboard.


That's strategy not tactics.

In article ,
Ron Natalie wrote:
Nexrad XM datalink...is a strategic tool, not a
tactical tool.

That is the conventional wisdom, but I suspect it comes more from lawyers
than from pilots experienced with using datalinked NEXRAD.

I used the same wording and I have XM weather and have used it.

I believe you're not an instrument pilot? I suspect you use it quite
differently than Dan, or other instrument pilots who are often engaged
in weather flying.

That being said, I certainly wouldn't rely on NEXRAD alone to weave my
way through a line of cells. NEXRAD + Echo Tops + Sferics would get me
closer, but I'm not sure that I'd take the risk of close-in deviations
without the live picture (sferics + airborne radar).





I use XM NEXRAD tactically all the time. If there's a growing cell 15
miles
ahead, I will use the NEXRAD picture to decide whether to go left or right
around it based on its history and the location of other cells beyond it.
That's tactical, to me, and it's the best thing about having satellite
weather aboard.


That's strategy not tactics.

Making enroute decisions to deviate based on uplinked information?
Sounds like tactics to me.





JKG

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message oups.com...
:
: Nexrad XM datalink could be as much as 10 minutes old. So, no, you
: cannot use it to buzz between cells. It is a strategic tool, not a
: tactical tool. Flying 50 miles thataway is a much better plan.
:


Is there some sort of time marker on the screen to indicate the time the last data was updated, or to indicate how old
it is?

"Jim Burns" wrote in message ...
: Agreed. I also think that it's much more beneficial in IFR to have a second
: source of weather such as a Stormscope or such to help delineate between
: rain and actual thunderstorms.
: Jim
:
:

Yes the lightening strikes tell the tale. What is the difference between Stormscope strikes and ones displayed from XM?