Feedback needed on XM Weather packages?

KiloWhiskey1 · #1 12-02-2006, 04:27 PM

I am about to subscribe to XM Weather services for my Garmin 496 and wanted to get some feedback as to which weather package I should buy. I ran a search and didn't find anything on the subject so I thought I would post this request. I plan to fly quite a bit of cross country and hopefully some IFR after completing my IFR training. My aircraft panel has a good IFR setup with GRTs, a 430, 330, SL40, TruTrak and as mentioned earlier a 496. Has anyone had experience with the $29 and $49 packages from XM? If so, do you think it is worth paying the extra $20 per month? Thanks for the help.

Keith

Ironflight · #2 12-02-2006, 05:19 PM

Keith,

I actually can't figure out why, but when I called up to activate my subscription for my 396 a few months back, I asked for the "LITE" option (OK, OK....I am cheap!), and that is what I am paying for....but for some reason, I am getting all of the full package data! And when I look at the XM page when the system is on, it tells me I am getting the "FULL" service. They are clever the way they have the packages split by the way - almost everything that you'd want is in the "LITE" package, but the winds aloft is extremely useful, and only comes in the "FULL" package...they're not dummies.

Still, I could probably survive without the winds aloft to save $20 per month...like I said, I'm cheap...

Paul

JordanGrant · #3 12-02-2006, 06:20 PM

I subscribe to the LITE, or whatever the cheapest option is. You get all you need, and the winds aloft are not worth the 5 gallons of avgas a month. You can always get that at the FBO, and it doesn't change much while you fly a 3-hour leg. Now - knowing where the thunderstorms are in real time -THAT is priceless!!

n5lp · #4 12-02-2006, 06:47 PM

In my area the radar doesn't always show the precip because of distance and mountains. I like the lightning strike data, that always seems to work, to show where the thunderstorms are. Lightning is part of the more expensive package.

KPmarc · #5 12-02-2006, 08:59 PM

Well, I've been using the more expensive service and really like it. Winds aloft are cool, but it's the Airmet and Sigmet service that I've found extremely useful. Echo tops are also a great tool for determining cloud height ahead of you, and allied with the satellite mosaic you've a bunch of great tools in hand.

I was skeptical that the extra features would be worth $20/month, but I think they are.

JMO,

Marc

RatMan · #6 12-02-2006, 10:49 PM

A friend of mine with a 396 tells me he can "upgrade" his subscription to Aviator when he needs it with a phone call. After the trip he calls and "downgrades" it back to Aviator LT and only gets charged for one month of Aviator.

Can't verify it but it sounds reasonable to me.

hevansrv7a · #7 12-03-2006, 07:06 AM

I have neither, so this is just FYI. GRT EFIS supports XM weather, too. Since the GRT display is larger, it might be better for WX. Personally, I prefere my Garmin 296 for navigation and don't use the GRT navigation screens.

KiloWhiskey1 · #8 12-03-2006, 08:41 AM

Thanks for all the replies. Like most things in Aviation there are trade offs. The responses seem to confirm that for this topic as well. The feedback on moving from the Aviator LT to the Aviator package seems reasonable. I think I will start with the full deal just to see how much I use the extras (I wonder if they will let you sign up for the full deal and then go backwards? I will check on that). I like the convenience of having updated winds aloft. They are very sneaky to hold a few gems out for the $20. I am sure their cost goes way up to deliver the extras....probably not!

As far as adding the weather to the GRTs, I looked into that and decided not to go that route. The GRT weather module costs $1500 and I new that I also wanted a 396 or 496. It came down to cost mainly, and I thought I would like seeing the weather displayed on top of the detailed topographical maps on the Garmin.

Ultimately I would like the same package that Paul has.

Maybe, just maybe, lightning will strike for me as well. Paul, for your sake, I hope the XM folks aren't reading this thread. I also was wondering if they are smart enough to know that your NASA connections may wield more power than Mother Nature when it comes to their satellites.

They may just be even sneakier that we give them credit for.

Ok, enough rambling on my end. Thanks again to everyone for replying.

Keith

Ironflight · #9 12-03-2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KiloWhiskey1

Paul, for your sake, I hope the XM folks aren't reading this thread. I also was wondering if they are smart enough to know that your NASA connections may wield more power than Mother Nature when it comes to their satellites.

They may just be even sneakier that we give them credit for.

Keith

I may not know where their satallites are right now....but I know how to find out pretty quick!

Paul

tommylewis · #10 12-03-2006, 05:10 PM

I have been flying 200 hours per year with XM weather running on a tablet PC for the last 2 years in a Tiger and C182. In my opinion, based on that experience, if you are planning to use XM weather to stay out of the weather VFR, then the Lite package is probably all you need. However, if you are planning to fly through the weather, probably IFR, then the extras offered by the Aviator package is worth the extra $20 per month. Believe me, when you are up there IFR in the soup, the extra $20 seems like a bargain. In particular, the lightning strikes, winds and airmets are useful.

Once we switched to the Aviator package, we never went back to the Lite.

In my RV7a, which a plan on flying this spring, I will have XM weather on the GRT screens. That is, when GRT begins shipping their XM receiver.

Tom Lewis
Granbury, Tx