Need opinions of Nexrad on a Garmin 496

Pegasus

Pegasus

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
65
Location
Waunakee, WI
Display Name
Display name:
Pegasus
Do you have a 496 and subscribe to the XM weather? If so is the display on the 496 big enough to allow you to pinpoint where the wx is? I just purchased a 496 and have not yet subscribed to the XM wx yet, looking for opinions on how it works for you.
 
I would not use a 496 to try to pinpoint weather. Remember this information is of questionable recency, and even if it's recent it's not 100% accurate.

Using the XM weather is another tool to help you navigate around weather conditions, but I've seen and talked to people showing it go both ways, where it gives false positives and false negatives. Be careful what exactly you use it for. Also remember that generally when you're doing WX avoidance, you want to make your turns early where they are not major ones. 10 degrees left or right to get around a system, etc.

I personally don't bother with it. I've used them before, and I will probably be convinced to buy one eventually, but talking to ATC/Flight Service and looking out the window has worked for me pretty well.
 
I'll stress Ted's point that it's used for system avoidance, not trying to pick your way through cells. For that, the resolution is fine. As with any system, know its benefits and weaknesses.

I disagree with Ted on its utility. We feel that it's well worth it, after having some cross countries where there are large areas where we couldn't pick up flight service and being told that approach didn't have weather radar available. Plus, trying to plot out airmets or sigmets from HIWAS in an area you're totally unfamiliar with is challenging and takes your attention from flying the plane. Yeah, that's not Nexrad per se, but it speaks to the general utility of satellite weather.
 
gprellwitz said:
I'll stress Ted's point that it's used for system avoidance, not trying to pick your way through cells. For that, the resolution is fine. As with any system, know its benefits and weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Yep!

I disagree with Ted on its utility. We feel that it's well worth it, after having some cross countries where there are large areas where we couldn't pick up flight service and being told that approach didn't have weather radar available. Plus, trying to plot out airmets or sigmets from HIWAS in an area you're totally unfamiliar with is challenging and takes your attention from flying the plane. Yeah, that's not Nexrad per se, but it speaks to the general utility of satellite weather.
Click to expand...

This is true, and a lot of it probably comes down to where we fly. Here in the North East where we have high population densities, 122.00 pretty much always gets you somebody, and ATC has not failed to give me weather radar yet, it's not a big deal, and that's part of why I've not had any instances where I've said "I really wish I had that 496". I would probably be more interested in it if I was flying out to the great unknowns of the west.
 
I'm with Grant on both points.

I love my xm weather, it's great.

Plan on it being 10 to 20 minutes old though as it typically is.
 
I use XM cross country alot. I have gone though storm lines and I can tell you it is accurate, certainly better than nothing. That being said there is a delay, so fast moving cells & storm lines locations will need to be anticipated.(AKA; look out the windows ;)) What is really nice is knowing the weather on the other side of the storm line, and where the end of it is. Knowing where the end of the storm line is you can avoid entering a "sucker hole".

Use XM is watch storm trends. Is the WX building or falling? XM is a tool to be used to make decisions. The more information you have at your disposal the better decisions you'll make. I'm not advocating punching through storm lines, rather use the information to make the best decisions.

Also, the other features can save you time & money. Winds Aloft gets you better fuel mileage. Freeze Level helps you avoid icing conditions. Satellite Mosaic helps you decide weather to get on top or scud run. Obstacles, terrain, there is alot of info in a 496. I would not fly CC without it .

JMHO
 
Last edited:
My wife refuses to fly long XC's without weather now, period. Between the Nexrad and our Stormscope we have a TON of capability onboard to avoid storms.
 
I had a 396 with XM wx- loved it. Now I have it on the G1000. It is the same wx the FSS guys have, except maybe the radar is slightly delayed. I can see stuff brewing from a long way out, so I can plan detours or delays. The NEXRAD is not nearly precise enough to pick holes, but you can definitely see where you don't want to go and plan accordingly. It gave me good peace of mind. Plus the lightning detection, while again not as up to date as a stormscope, also clues you in on areas to avoid.

I think it's well worth the $$. I don't like flying blind and relying on FSS.
 
I like being able to see where the rain is at, but sometimes you end up IMC for a while and begin to wonder what is up ahead. Many times center is not much help and the last trip I took the local radar was out in the area I needed it the most. That is what pushed me over the edge to get the 496. Yes, I plan on using it for deciding where not to go.
Thanks for the great comments, keep them coming.
 
I find the 3/496 WX VERY useful. As already mentioned, it's not current enough to pick through storm lines, but it is GREAT as another set of 'see-and-avoid' eyes especially when in IMC as you mentioned.

A month or two ago I flew down to SAT from Iowa. We went just east of Kansas City where there was a HUGE blob of yellow on the radar sitting over and west of KC. We were /A and in solid IMC, but thanks to the 396, we were able to request our own route around the weather. I think ATC appreciated it as well, because they didn't have to look at our flight path and figure out what was the best route for us - we had a plan, they made sure it was OK with them, and bang we're on our way. OTOH, the big boys trying to get in to KC were clueless about where to go and how to get there, so ATC was busy as all get-out trying to figure out the best routes for all the other guys.

As someone else mentioned, it is also great for finding out what is on the 'other side' when VMC. I flew VFR from Iowa to NW Alabama and was able to dodge building t-storms and pick my way around lines thanks to the 396 WX. It's nice to be able to see around a build-up that will take you 30 mins of extra time to get around - it's nice to feel confident about picking the correct direction to go around it.
 
I'm pretty close to considering XM weather a go-no item for longer trips. That said, it's only one tool in the tool box. I use the XM as a strategic tool, but it's also useful as a tactical tool -- ie navigating around cells -- IF you do it properly. Pay close attention to the age of the data. Remain visual if you can so you can spot cells. Verify the XM picture with real-time data such as stormscope/strikefinder, eyeballs and onboard radar.

XM weather is great. It's a significant safety improvement. But like most things aviation, it's not sole source.
 
At 1238 am this morning a hell of a rainstorm started at my house. The interactive on weather.com showed an image as of 1230, with the red stuff a few blocks away. That information was consistent with the time-line on the local news channel's severe weather update. Their stuff is NEXRAD. The lightning had been visible for quite some time, and moving closer. Anybody with a lick of sense could tell we were going to have some action.

This event is typical of in the middle of the country, where we have frequent frontal activity, and are therefore joined at the hip to our XM subscriptions. I have learned that if I'm flying where a major convective system is in the area, or lies along the route, I will want to know if we:

1. will need to cross it (and if so if that is a viable option depending on the equipment and the severity of the activity
2. can arrive at our destination and be safely inside before the storm arrives
3. will need to delay or divert to get behind it
4. are FIGMO and should just stay where we are

For those purposes, the XM is a slam dunk because much of the weather information we were accessing on the ground prior to takeoff is still available in the plane. Anybody who's not smart enough to cheat away from an oncoming frontal/squall line shouldn't be allowed to leave the house, let alone fly an airplane.

Air mass and other summer-day buildups are a bit more difficult, but the XM is sufficiently accurate to show them building and reforming, so their presence is well-known. The delayed pictoral is probably more significant relative to these peek-a-boo buildups. As we like to say, "don't be headed where they're imbedded."

In any event, our XM is like AMEX used to be. We don't leave home without it. And we get the tunes and Fox news in the package. Is this a great country or what?




Pegasus said:
Do you have a 496 and subscribe to the XM weather? If so is the display on the 496 big enough to allow you to pinpoint where the wx is? I just purchased a 496 and have not yet subscribed to the XM wx yet, looking for opinions on how it works for you.
Click to expand...
 
I'm with Ken. If you do any serious IFR, looking out of the window won't do. Flight Service is no substitute either because they can only give you a general idea of where the weather _was_. By the time you get there, it won't be there anymore. Furthermore, there is a lot of value in being able to visualize your route through the WX and plan deviations. It's impossible to do with Flight Service to a similar degree of accuracy. Even VFR, the ability to get a good picture of the WX is worth a lot.

Scott has mentioned that there are sometimes issues with XM white-listing a large area (in other words, no precip will ever show up there unless they remove that filter) because they don't expect precip there and want to avoid clutter. Apparently, they sometimes forget to remove that filter in time.

Personally, I feel that XM+Stormscope+Radar really gives you everything you need to know. I'm a little uncomfortable with just XM without a good way to verify. XM+Stormscope is my minimum.

To answer the OP's question - the display is perfectly adequate for looking at the radar. You can zoom in and see a lot of detail, too.

-Felix
 
Once you use it, you will wonder why you didn't get it sooner! I have XM on my Flight Cheetah and it's worth every penny!
 
What I really like about the 496 XM weather is when I am not flying I have it sitting on my dash. I leave it on all the time when the weather is bad. Knowing when and where the storms are is helpful on the ground also.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all of the prior post but would like to add, the 396/496 with XM WX are only a resource for planning. I wouldn't fly(bet my life) in solid IMC with only a 396/496XM while trying to deviate around cells. Advance planning using the 396/496XM to avoid WX is OK if you remain far enough away from the Cell activity and remain in the clear. There are many resources out there such as Stormscope, Strikefinder, Radar or the old back up, Flight Watch. Hail can be encountered many miles downwind from the producing cell. Didn't Scott Crossfield have the 396XM in use when he went down in heavy WX?? There is an old saying, "If you keep pushing your luck with Mother Nature you will eventually lose". In my Baron, I have a 396XM WX and Insight Strikefinder, both are great resources.
Keep the Blue on the upper half,
Captain JC
 
I have the 496 hooked up by my computer now (antennas on the window ledge), nice. I have been comparing the nexrad display on the 496 to the internet images. Did notice where the internet showed some small and light areas of precip that did not appear on the 496. Must have been the filter that was talked about. Plan is to get everything mounted and wires run neatly in the plane today. I had planned on only having the weather in the summer, but I may be hooked already. Looks like it will save a lot of calls to flight watch or FSS. Thanks again for all the comments.
 
My wife and I are VFR pilots by choice. That said, we still do transcontinental flights in our Cherokee Pathfinder each year.

In the old "pre-XM" days, this entailed talking to flight service en route, and trying to visualize a line of storms that extended from "14 miles on the 157 radial from Fuddpucker VOR, to 27 miles out on the 340 radial from Bangaduck VOR" -- in a part of the country where you didn't know nuthin' about where the VORs were. In other words, en route weather was nearly useless, and we spent a fair amount of time on the ground waiting for weather to move through, simply because we couldn't accurately tell what lay ahead.

Now, we bring up XM on the 496 and WATCH the weather develop ahead. Or not. It's absolutely marvelous, and has allowed us to complete flights that would have not been possible before. It's also told us when to land and sit it out.

For example, we were droning along from Iowa to Sun N Fun a couple of years ago. We had to wait for a HUGE late winter storm system to move on through before we could depart. This low pressure center was trailing a front that stretched from the Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. With XM on this 6.5 hour flight we were able to see the storm track several STATES ahead, determine their rate of drift to the East, and set our course accordingly so that -- by the time we arrived -- we would be in the clear all the way. This saved us significant time, and made for a more comfortable journey.

Another example: We flew to Wisconsin one fine day, and their was a line of low clouds between us and there. It was good VFR beneath the layer, but bumpier than hell. Normally, as VFR pilots, we would not fly over a solid overcast -- but with XM we were able to see that the overcast was merely a "stripe" about 25 miles wide. Rather than ducking underneath into the turbulent air below, we were able to stay VFR on top.

Just as depicted, in ten minutes we could see the clear ahead. This made for a faster and more comfortable flight.

Another example: Flying to Texas, we could see a line of storms ahead over Oklahoma. These were typical summer storms, with no "line" associated with them. We call them "popcorn storms" in Iowa, and they are easily circumnavigated -- but only if you KNOW there's nothing building behind them.

With XM, you know. The flight was easily and safely completed, whereas in the old days, we probably would have needlessly landed.

We live in amazing times. There are three things that have changed EVERYTHING about flying since I learned how to do it:

1. GPS
2. ANR
3. XM

We wouldn't launch on a cross-country flight without all three of those things anymore. It makes me wonder how we used to fly without them.

:yes:
 
Speaking of Garmin 396/496XM and all other fine Garmin Avionics, did anyone know Jerry Smith, Garmin Regional Sales Manager. He died last week while enroute to Mena, AR (MEZ). He crashed near Rich Mountain which is a few miles NW of Mena. Jerry was flying his own Cessna 177 which had Garmins Avionics installed in it. Jerry was very well liked.
Sad ending for a very fine person. The WX wasn't very good but the cause is still unknown.
Fly safe,
Captain JC
 
Jay,
Last year we flew to Sun-N-Fun and waited a day before we left to let a storm get ahead of us. We stopped in Tupelo, MS and visited with Elvis. Nice weather to MS but real bumpy and windy in FL. Sure would have been nice to have had the XM weather back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top