496 XM weather issues

[Dave Siciliano]

Several folks on another board have had XM weather issues on their Garmin 496 units since the first. If you have a critical flight coming up, it might be worth a check if you will be depending upon it.

My 496 didn't work yesterday on flights from SC to FL to TX. I spent over 30 minutes on the phone with someone in Manila; got cut off twice until finally getting there. Said my CC expired, but they had just billed me for the quarter.

Finally got me to a tech guy who was nice, but he said he couldn't reactivate it; they had taken that away from him. He could only put in a request. I had passengers on the ramp waiting in FL while I held and held.
Told them I was a pilot trying to depart and got this: oh! You fly airplanes? Where? etc, from Manila. I asked if they could just get it working.

The tech guy told me I had to do certain things on the unit once it was reactivated, but I would have to get that from Garmin. It wasn't in my 496 manual; it was in a supplement which I wasn't carrying.

All this with low IFR most of the flight and through some pretty good sized storms in LA on the way to Dallas.

Not good.

Best,

Dave

 

[RotorAndWing]

If you have a critical flight coming up, it might be worth a check if you will be depending upon it.

XM weather, or any broadcast type weather shouldn't be relied upon if you have a "critical flight".

Granted, XM weather makes a good supplement to flight planning, but that's it.

 

[jesse]

XM weather, or any broadcast type weather shouldn't be relied upon if you have a "critical flight".

Granted, XM weather makes a good supplement to flight planning, but that's it.

He didn't mean that. One could argue that you don't need every piece of equipment in your airplane working before flying.

Smart pilots, like Dave, realize if they have the equipment they should start the flight with it working. No reason to put yourself at a disadvantage by launching with inoperative equipment that you paid good money for.

As far as relying on the weather? That is up to the pilot. They shouldn't be trying to dodge embedded storms with a mile margin but there is no reason a pilot can't turn a flight into a "no-go" because their broadcast radar was off-line from the start. It is a hell of a tool on any long distance XC.

Basically--don't back yourself in a corner where you'll die without it...but if you have it--you might as well try to get it online before you launch on a challenging flight.

 

[sba55]

Dave,

I'm having the same issue. Tried it with another 496, which didn't work either....XM says it's Garmin's fault, Garmin says XM needs to fix it....

 

[TMetzinger]

Be interesting to see what the problem REALLY is once it's resolved.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I have XM weather on my boat's Garmin network, as well as on my GNS 530 in my plane and several XM radios.

XM has the worst customer service I have dealt with. When I put the Garmin network on the boat it took 2 days and several phone calls to XM to get it to work. I have been fortunate that the GDL-69 in the plane has worked flawless.

YMMV

 

[SCCutler]

Be interesting to see what the problem REALLY is once it's resolved.

Like they'll tell us?

My prediction:

They'll never tell us the straight story, the finger-pointing will continue and, ultimately, the story will be told in depositions.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

Like I posted on the red board, one of our CJ3's had an issue with the XM subscription today enroute from Nevis to Ft. Pierce, FL. It was giving them a "subscription expired" message on the MFD even though it was active and being paid for. I had XM send a new signal to the radio ID for that airplane and after that point, they were able to use the XM. My grandfather is having the same issue with is 496 in the Bonanza. Hopefully he will call to get it refreshed tomorrow and it will start working again. Definitely a PITA.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

XM weather, or any broadcast type weather shouldn't be relied upon if you have a "critical flight".

Granted, XM weather makes a good supplement to flight planning, but that's it.

Well, I guess this is what I get for trying to let folks know there could be a problem in advance. No good deed goes unpunished

Best,

Dave

 

[dmccormack]

496 XM wasn't working for us Saturday, either -- and all paid up, etc.

Maybe a system problem?

 

[sba55]

496 XM wasn't working for us Saturday, either -- and all paid up, etc.

Maybe a system problem?

Apparently a problem with Garmin's software that triggered the current issue when XM changed the channel line-up. Seems like you can get it working by 1) trying a refresh first and, if that doesn't work 2) calling support and asking for a full deactivate-activate cycle.

-Felix

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Thanks Steve, Jesse and others! Every once in awhile I just feel that no matter how nice I try to be or how helpful I try to be, someone has to just jump on me. I swear, this is becoming more and more like another board I left sometime ago: folks with huge egos trying to act important instead of just trying to be friends and help each other do better.

I really like having weather on the 496, especially on a day like Saturday: I can see the big picture much better than with on-board RADAR; can get up-to-date weather at my destination well ahead and can see where the system is heading and building. I flew seven hours on Saturday from South Carolina to Florida and Texas. Flight Watch was backed up with calls and most of them didn't apply to where I was going. It's a very valuable tool for someone like me that is in the air a long period covering over 1,000NMs. I know a lot of folks flying jets and turbines that really use XM and do rely on it as another tool in the bag to try to deal with weather. Without it, I do have to plan differently and am much more dependent on radio briefs enroute that convey much less accurate information; as a matter of fact, I have really been mislead in the past by briefers on the the radio.

Best,

Dave

 

[Diana]

Thanks Steve, Jesse and others! Every once in awhile I just feel that no matter how nice I try to be or how helpful I try to be, someone has to just jump on me. I swear, this is becoming more and more like another board I left sometime ago: folks with huge egos trying to act important instead of just trying to be friends and help each other do better.

Sounds like you need an extra hug at Gaston's. You ARE coming to Gaston's, right?

BTW, our 496 XM weather wasn't working Friday either.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Thanks Steve, Jesse and others! Every once in awhile I just feel that no matter how nice I try to be or how helpful I try to be, someone has to just jump on me. I swear, this is becoming more and more like another board I left sometime ago: folks with huge egos trying to act important instead of just trying to be friends and help each other do better.

OK, since feelings are hurt, let's recap what was said:

Several folks on another board have had XM weather issues on their Garmin 496 units since the first. If you have a critical flight
coming up, it might be worth a check if you will be depending upon it.

Now, you used the words "critical flight" and "if you will be depending on it". My response was:

XM weather, or any broadcast type weather shouldn't be relied upon if you have a "critical flight".

Granted, XM weather makes a good supplement to flight planning, but that's it.

Now this is called an "opinion" and was made based upon "experience". Unfortunately too many pilots today are flying these XM weather equipped planes into worse weather than can actually deal with, being lured into a false security. It's easy to understand why as this technology becomes more commonplace..


And last I find it extremely immature when someone resorts to childish name calling when they disagree rather than having a constructive conversation.

folks with huge egos trying to act important instead of just trying to be friends and help each other do better.

My reply was intended to be constructive and offer some additional insight, and has nothing to do with "huge egos" as you put it.

 

[sba55]

I swear, this is becoming more and more like another board I left sometime ago: folks with huge egos trying to act important instead of just trying to be friends and help each other do better.

Dave, I know exactly what you mean, and this board is becoming like that board. Just had another experience with this in the live chat with people from whom I really wouldn't have expected it. Huge egos and know-it-alls are too common, sadly.

FWIW, I also completely agree with Steve.

-Felix

 

[poadeleted20]

Thread under MC review -- please stick to the aviation issues and keep the personal stuff out of it.

 

[Steve]

Almost makes flying helos in 'nam seem tame by comparison, eh?

Thanks Steve, Jesse and others! Every once in awhile I just feel that no matter how nice I try to be or how helpful I try to be, someone has to just jump on me. ...

 

[jason]

My reply was intended to be constructive and offer some additional insight, and has nothing to do with "huge egos" as you put it.

Honestly, I see what you're saying, but it didn't come across that way.

He's a big boy and a competent pilot. He was trying to warn people to check their XM before they depart. He didn't need his choice of words picked apart, nor did he solicit advice on how he plans and conducts his flights.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I found the ignore feature on here. First time for everything.

Hope everyone that has a Garmin unit checks it out before their next flight.

Best,

Dave

 

[gprellwitz]

Dave,
We haven't been flying yet this year, or checked our 496, but I too have seen reports on other boards (actually, the ASN listserv) that there are problems right now with XM WX. So your advice is good. Check it before you plan a flight using it!

 

[nyoung]

I went flying on Friday (the 2nd), and the XM portion of my 396 was working fine. I wonder if this is only a 496 issue vs a Garmin/XM issue?

 

[ScottM]

I went flying on Friday (the 2nd), and the XM portion of my 396 was working fine. I wonder if this is only a 496 issue vs a Garmin/XM issue?

From what I have read on the other boards about this issues it does indeed appear to be only affecting the 496s

 

[Dave Siciliano]

A couple folks on Beechlist reported issues with a 396 also. Who knows, software version, credit charges, or whatever. I've got an e-mail in to the technical fella I know up there. The important thing is folks don't get a surprise when making a flight where they wanted that service.

Best,

Dave

 

[mikea]

A couple folks on Beechlist reported issues with a 396 also. Who knows, software version, credit charges, or whatever. ...

I'd put money on an issue with the year flipping. The word is the Zunes were taken out due to the 2008 leap year, however that could be an issue.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I chatted with Derek there and he said they are working on finding the problem. Seems to be isolated to portable Garmin units; mostly the 496 but a few 396s have reported a problem. He's not sure it's not here end; checking Garmin code and other issues. He want me to refresh my unit and report back to him so he can track it.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

I chatted with Derek there and he said they are working on finding the problem. Seems to be isolated to portable Garmin units; mostly the 496 but a few 396s have reported a problem. He's not sure it's not here end; checking Garmin code and other issues. He want me to refresh my unit and report back to him so he can track it.

Best,

Dave

I'd like to put in a (well deserved) plug for XM and Derek. This problem may or may not be XM's fault yet Derek is working hard to resolve it even though his hands are rather tied up should the cause turn out to be Garmin's error. I know that problems with receivers has been a constant source of grief for XM because they are pretty much the first place users attribute any problems to even though many of those problems have been caused by the equipment manufacturers. I sincerely hope that us aviation weather customers don't become such a PITA that XMirus doesn't decide to pull the plug on this much needed service.

 

[mantakos]

... mostly the 496 but a few 396s have reported a problem...

Interesting. I powered up my 396 to take a look-see, and on the XM page, I see a full "3 bars" of signal strength, but nothing else, no information whatsoever, no evidence of the "preview channel", nothing. Even if it was an issue with keys, and refreshes, etc, there should still be all that stuff there. I'm running the latest software from Garmin, circa June of '08 or so.
-harry

 

[bstratt]

One of my partners and I decided to pay for the XM Wx service on his 396 in August. Since signing up its worked twice. We've refreshed, reinstalled, deactivated/reactivated and now Garmin says the problem is in either the antenna or the unit and we have to send them both in to get tested (and of course it costs $ for the tests). What a PITA! The only reason we keep going is that people have said how useful it is (when it works!)!

 

[dmccormack]

I'm with Dave -- XM on handheld is a superb tool for IMC IFR flight and the lack of that data now becomes a real consideration during pre-flight.

What makes XM WX worth its weight in gold (which is nearly its purchae price) is the ability to display embedded cells.

I had an expereince this summer that sealed the deal. Leaving 60J on a typical summer mid-morning with low clouds and a few cells reported nearby by LM FSS, we launched into the soup.

Still climbing, Myrtle Beach Approach said, "Fly heading 060 for traffic separation."

First that was 120 degrees right of desired heading.

Second, the XM showed lots of red just off the right wing.

"Unable Myrtle -- we have better weather data than you do and that heading will put us right in the center of a cell."

"Roger. Maintain current heading."

 

[jesse]

"Unable Myrtle -- we have better weather data than you do and that heading will put us right in the center of a cell."

I'm not sure I would make a habit out of using XM weather as a complete replacement of ATC radar for tactical avoidance of cells. They probably have a more current image than you do.

I wouldn't consider my radar better than the controllers unless I had an onboard active system.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm not sure I would make a habit out of using XM weather as a complete replacement of ATC radar for tactical avoidance of cells. They probably have a more current image than you do.

I wouldn't consider my radar better than the controllers unless I had an onboard active system.

Tactical schmactical.

I'm here, red (bad) is there. I'm not going there, and will give there a wide berth (20 mile minimum).

Though onboard radar would be welcome, it was not available on that flight.

Not only was XM painting red, it was clearly darker off our right wing.

It's better to remember who dies when ATC is wrong.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't think XM is a good tactical tool. At best it shows what happened 7-10 minutes ago, and at worst it can be much older. Now a 'spherics device is real time, and it and the mark one mod zero eyeballs make good tactical tools.

XM Nexrad in my opinion is terrific for figuring out which areas (many miles wide) you'll want to avoid while you're still many miles away.

In Dan's case, it sounds like the area he was avoiding was big enough that the age of the NEXRAD didn't matter, and his eyeball backed it up.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I agree Tim. We've chatted about this many times on here. Great strategic tool to see the total picture, which way things are moving, where the front is and weather ahead. I use the on-board radar and storm scope for closer in work (tactical). Still, after flying with it several years, not having it takes away a lot of good information. I prefer to have it if possible. Don't think other folks would pay these fees if they didn't agree.

Best,

Dave

 

[TMetzinger]

That reminds me - I need to update my risk spreadsheet - I'm going to make it so having in-cockpit weather is a net risk reduction of a few points. It's not so much a go/no-go item on its own, but it could tip the balance.

 

[jesse]

Tactical schmactical.

I'm here, red (bad) is there. I'm not going there, and will give there a wide berth (20 mile minimum).

You're at X location. The screen is painting Y location which is several minutes old. Y location now versus what is on your screen *has* changed. How much? Who knows. Would I bet my life on it? Nope. I won't use XM for tactical avoidance--I will use my eyes or an active radar. If I can't use my eyes (embedded) I'm getting way the hell away from it.

Though onboard radar would be welcome, it was not available on that flight.

Understand. I do not generally fly with active radar.

Not only was XM painting red, it was clearly darker off our right wing.

It's better to remember who dies when ATC is wrong.

Good. Use your eyes. That said, I would not discount ATC's *LIVE* active radar with your *DELAYED* broadcast radar. Your XM feed is delayed by nature. Use all your tools, including ATC.

I mean no offense. I just took surprise by your comment that your delayed broadcast radar was more accurate than a live active radar that ATC may or may not have.

I love XM...but I'll take active radar over my delayed XM for actual avoidance. XM does a great job at showing you the entire picture, what is behind it, trend information, and what is 500 miles in front of you. In an ideal world you'd have both active and broadcast...but I'm not that rich

 

[TMetzinger]

Well, depending on the ATC facility and how they have their displays configured, they may not show any weather at all!

 

[jesse]

Well, depending on the ATC facility and how they have their displays configured, they may not show any weather at all!

Exactly. Which is why it is worth asking. We're getting off topic here though...Sorry for stealing your thread Dave! Thanks for letting us know about the problem.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Seems to be the units that have weather only. Those that also have radio seem to be working. They seem to diligently be working on getting to the bottom of it.

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

From the chief engineer at XM:

I have been talking/emailing a lot of you regarding the 396/496
problems-- thanks to all for both your time and patience. I regret that I haven't been able to fix everything. For now, I don't have any answers, just questions that some of you might be able to help with.

I would appreciate it if anyone can DISPROVE any of the following:

1) The only units affected are Garmin

2) Specifically, only the Garmin "hockey puck" units are affected (i.e,
396/496--- what does the 696 have?)

3) A refresh (refresh.xmradio.com) fixes things EXCEPT for people who DO NOT subscribe to the audio channels.

4) For those who subscribe to weather ONLY (no audio), neither a refresh or activate/deactivate works, all you see is a blank audio screen and/or "waiting for data" in the subscription level box.

5) The problems first started occurring New Year's Day.

How you can further help: I am trying to pinpoint the start time of the "anomaly". Please let me know (offlist is fine) when your box last worked and when you first noticed it not working. Paul Safran says his worked until 5pm-ish New Years Day. Anyone have their box crap out earlier? Anybody have their box crap out mid-flight? And by "crap out"
I don't mean you lost winds aloft for a couple hours, or the METARs went missing, etc.---these are Garmin bugs I already know about---I mean the problems where you are not geting WX data AT ALL, possibly accompanied by a funky subscription level message.

Also, if anyone has a 396/496 that has NOT been affected, please let me know the software version number if you can (displays lower right corner on startup).

Wish I had better information. All I can say is the certified units and most (maybe all, hard to prove a negative) non-Garmin units are fine.
Otherwise, the XM system is fine; the XMWX system is fine. So far, this appears to be related to Garmin 396/496 software only.

Thanks again,

Derek

 

[dmccormack]

You're at X location. The screen is painting Y location which is several minutes old. Y location now versus what is on your screen *has* changed. How much? Who knows. Would I bet my life on it? Nope. I won't use XM for tactical avoidance--I will use my eyes or an active radar. If I can't use my eyes (embedded) I'm getting way the hell away from it.

It's not binary.

XM trend data will show where the cells have been and where they are heading, and whether the cell is expanding or dissappating. So with 10 minutes of historic data (even if the data is 15 minutes old), you should have a very good idea where you can and cannot go.

Good. Use your eyes. That said, I would not discount ATC's *LIVE* active radar with your *DELAYED* broadcast radar. Your XM feed is delayed by nature. Use all your tools, including ATC.

Tough to see much except "darker there but lighter there" maybe in IMC, and even that is lousy for actual avoidance.

Myrtle Beach Approach is an old AF Base facility (switched over in 2002?). I did not know if they had WARP or whether the controller was going to help or cover his career by providing minimal assistance (it happens -- ask Scott Crossfield. Oh wait...).

Sure, I can ask him, and then request certain buttons be pushed, etc, but I'm not that awesome ...

I mean no offense. I just took surprise by your comment that your delayed broadcast radar was more accurate than a live active radar that ATC may or may not have.

None taken.

As far as I was concerned, at the time, I had data in front of me that said a heading of 060 would put me in a cell. I give minimum 20 miles from any red because there is a known delay, but there's a difference between heaidng right at a cell (Did it move enough?) and flying along side one, or even away from one.

I prefer away.

I love XM...but I'll take active radar over my delayed XM for actual avoidance. XM does a great job at showing you the entire picture, what is behind it, trend information, and what is 500 miles in front of you. In an ideal world you'd have both active and broadcast...but I'm not that rich

I love XM too. But I'll take cautious "Unable" over, "I hope he's right" anyday.