GPS/XM Weather Question

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
and my argument is based on the "true" cloud being visible water vapor.

Clouds are not "visible water vapor". Water vapor is invisible, and if
the water stayed as vapor, there would be no clouds. Clouds are
=condensed= water vapor, that is, liquid water droplets, or solid ice
particles, in such density as they impede light.

Jose

Picky, picky

"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote:

and my argument is based on the "true" cloud being visible water vapor.

Clouds are not "visible water vapor". Water vapor is invisible, and if
the water stayed as vapor, there would be no clouds. Clouds are
=condensed= water vapor, that is, liquid water droplets, or solid ice
particles, in such density as they impede light.

Jose

Picky, picky

What's picky about it? Calling clouds "vapor" is the same order-of-magnitude
mistake as calling ice cubes "liquid."

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
"Casey Wilson" N2310D @ gmail.com wrote:


and my argument is based on the "true" cloud being visible water vapor.

Clouds are not "visible water vapor". Water vapor is invisible, and if
the water stayed as vapor, there would be no clouds. Clouds are
=condensed= water vapor, that is, liquid water droplets, or solid ice
particles, in such density as they impede light.

Jose

Picky, picky


What's picky about it? Calling clouds "vapor" is the same order-of-magnitude
mistake as calling ice cubes "liquid."


I don't see this definition implying invisibility at all, quite the
opposite if it "impairs transparency", then it isn't invisible.

http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/vapor

Matt

I don't see this definition implying invisibility at all, quite the opposite if it "impairs transparency", then it isn't invisible.

http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/vapor

There are four definitions there, the fourth obviously does not apply.
The third is certainly invisible, but it doesn't apply either. The
second ("a substance in the gaseous state...") is the one that applies
here. The word "vapor" itself, even in this definition, does not mean
"an invisible substance", however, water vapor (gaseous water) is
invisible in macrosocopic amounts. While it is visible in megascopic
amounts, (a planet made entirely of water vapor would not be invisible),
that's more water vapor than what we fly in.

The first definition "diffused matter, (as smoke or fog)", since it is
found in the dictionary, is a definition that was meant at least once.
I am surprised that it is the first entry; in fact I think this says a
lot for the state of science education in this country. In a technical
discussion (such as a piloting newsgroup) and referring to the makeup of
clouds, I would find the first entry to be inappropriate, and the second
one is the definittion I would expect a speaker or writer would mean in
this context.

But if it's on the computer, it must be right.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
: In article ,
: ".Blueskies." wrote:
: : As I already said, all that XM does for you is show you the data in a
: : friendlier way, and avoid the radio call to the FSS. Expecting more from
: : them is unreasonable and will guarantee disappointment on your part.
: :
: : Pete
: :
: :
:
: All said and done, I still consider the monthly ~$30 charge to be a user fee
: of sorts. You can call FSS on the radio or
: pay the fee and receive the same info. More convenient to use the GPS? Maybe
: for some...
:
: It isn't the same information. There is no substitute for having all
: data front of you, and not having to waste time trying to figure out
: what you're about to fly into, praying that someone will answer you on
: Flight Watch, and then having to rely on that person's interpretation of
: the weather. There's just no comparison whatsoever.
:
: And your notion of the XM subscription cost being a "user fee" is
: ridiculous, as I've pointed out previously.
:
:
:
: JKG

Taken out of context I see your confusion. The data that is the same is the METAR and other text based info that is
available via XM. The painted radar stuff is the thousand word picture.

Also, if you are just now "trying to figure out what you're about to fly into, praying that someone will answer you on
Flight Watch", you did a poor job on your preflight and other decisions up to that point.

Ridiculous maybe, but not much different from the FAA wanting to charge for a flight plan or a weather briefing - the
data is already generated and crunched by the gov't, and it is being delivered for a fee. You are a user, and you are
paying...

Dan D.

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
: In article .com,
: "Jay Honeck" wrote:
: Obviously, in changing flight conditions this slow rate of change is
: simply unacceptable, and we quickly reverted to listening to AWOS's
: ahead on the radio.
:
: Strike two for XM.
:
: I suspect that the METAR data was being updated as expected, but the
: METARs don't change but once an hour, unless there's a SPECI issued.
: Same data as is available from flight service or DUATS.
:
:
:
: JKG

I see you get it now...

".Blueskies." wrote in message
m...
Taken out of context I see your confusion. The data that is the same is
the METAR and other text based info that is
available via XM. The painted radar stuff is the thousand word picture.

Yes, it is. Though, even the other data is presented more conveniently,
which is worth perhaps at least 100 words. It's superior to having to call
someone on the radio and have them relay the information verbally. The
radar image is invaluable.

Also, if you are just now "trying to figure out what you're about to fly
into, praying that someone will answer you on
Flight Watch", you did a poor job on your preflight and other decisions up
to that point.

IMHO, that's an unfair assumption. A pilot can do everything by the book,
with complete due diligence, and still wind up in that situation.

For example, on one flight I made across the country, one leg from Fort
Collins, CO to Springfield, MO involved a significant FSS-involved detour.
There had been no mention of convective activity when I got my pre-departure
briefing. But by the time I was enroute, I could clearly see a large mass
of clouds ahead, a couple of hours or so out of Springfield. I called up
the FSS and discovered a convective cell had popped up, and a fairly large
one at that. Fortunately, I got in touch with the FSS early enough that the
deviation required was minor (I only had to adjust course by 20 degrees or
so to safely bypass the convection).

It was still somewhat of a close one...the cell was moving east, catching up
to me at Springfield. I had to keep the fuel stop short and get back in the
air, otherwise I would have been engulfed and grounded until it passed. The
cell itself was quite large...at least 100 miles across, with lots of heavy
rain and other thunderstorm goings-on.

I admit, I wasn't exactly "praying" for the FSS to answer me on the radio,
but it certainly could have been a more stressful situation if I hadn't been
able to get in touch with them promptly (and that is sometimes the case,
when they are busy).

Ridiculous maybe, but not much different from the FAA wanting to charge
for a flight plan or a weather briefing - the
data is already generated and crunched by the gov't, and it is being
delivered for a fee. You are a user, and you are
paying...

The fee proposed to be charged by the government in these cases is not
necessarily for the data itself. It seems to me that what the pro-user-fee
people are claiming is that it's the human involvement to receive, activate,
monitor, close, and initiate search & rescue if necessary that costs money.
The flight plan itself is actually constructed by the pilot, so it doesn't
make any sense to claim that the FAA is charging for the data in that case.
The "data", such as it is was compiled by the pilot, not the FAA, and if all
that the pilot needed was the data, they would not need to actually file the
flight plan at all.

Likewise the weather briefing. Yes, the data is already generated. The fee
is to cover the cost of providing a briefer to provide and interpret the
data to the pilot. I can't guarantee that a fee wouldn't be charged for an
entirely automated briefing (ie DUAT), but it's clear to me that the
user-fee folks are using the human-powered component as justification for
the fee.

All that aside, I don't really have any problem at all with you calling
these costs "user fees", so long as you are willing to be consistent. As I
mentioned before, we already pay for a variety of data compiled by the
government. Are these costs user fees? Is it a user fee when I purchase an
aviation chart or approach plates? By your estimation, that's what they
ought to be called.

If you're happy calling those things "user fees" as well, then more power to
you. I don't agree, but it's just semantics and frankly I don't find that a
useful debate. But at the very least, you need to stay consistent in order
for your viewpoint to have any validity.

Pete

Is it a user fee when I purchase an
aviation chart or approach plates?

IF it were illegal to reuse charts, yes. But it's not. So no.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
".Blueskies." wrote:

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
: In article .com,
: "Jay Honeck" wrote:
: Obviously, in changing flight conditions this slow rate of change is
: simply unacceptable, and we quickly reverted to listening to AWOS's
: ahead on the radio.
:
: Strike two for XM.
:
: I suspect that the METAR data was being updated as expected, but the
: METARs don't change but once an hour, unless there's a SPECI issued.
: Same data as is available from flight service or DUATS.
:
:
:
: JKG

I see you get it now...

Excuse me? I see that you still don't.


JKG

In article ,
".Blueskies." wrote:
: It isn't the same information. There is no substitute for having all
: data front of you, and not having to waste time trying to figure out
: what you're about to fly into, praying that someone will answer you on
: Flight Watch, and then having to rely on that person's interpretation of
: the weather. There's just no comparison whatsoever.
:
: And your notion of the XM subscription cost being a "user fee" is
: ridiculous, as I've pointed out previously.
:
:
:
: JKG

Taken out of context I see your confusion. The data that is the same is the
METAR and other text based info that is
available via XM. The painted radar stuff is the thousand word picture.

I've flown many years without weather uplink, then with a StrikeFinder,
and now with a StrikeFinder and weather uplink. I may be confused about
many things, but the value of weather uplink isn't one of them.



Also, if you are just now "trying to figure out what you're about to fly
into, praying that someone will answer you on
Flight Watch", you did a poor job on your preflight and other decisions up to
that point.

So the weather picture doesn't change between the preflight planning and
the arrival at your destination?

The reality is that the weather picture has changed before you even
leave the flight briefing computer, or by the time or FSS briefing is
completed. It has certainly changed by the time that you're ready to
depart. Without weather uplink (or continuous updates from Flight
Watch), you have no idea HOW it's changed.





Ridiculous maybe, but not much different from the FAA wanting to charge for a
flight plan or a weather briefing - the
data is already generated and crunched by the gov't, and it is being
delivered for a fee. You are a user, and you are
paying...

No. The data is gathered by NWS and private sites, and is processed by
Baron Services. It's Baron's algorithms, forecasts, etc. that go into
the products. I suspect that most of the $30 or $50 per month goes to
Baron and not XM, for Baron is a private weather provider (not unlike
AccuWeather, Weather Channel, WSI, etc.)

Information such as lightning strikes is 100% private, as the government
doesn't operate a lightning detection network.

In any case, it's not like charging for filing a flight plan because you
don't have to buy it to fly in the system. Since you seem to feel that
weather uplink has little value, it should impact you even less. Having
to pay for flight plans, or to use ATC services, would have a noticeable
impact everyone. Not so with weather uplink.



JKG