Blake Graham wrote:
That is one way of approaching the suggestion. I would hate to hear what you think then of all the clutter on the Winds tab.
Well, since you brought up the issue of clutter ... (I was going to keep quiet about adding Fahrenheit to the METARS because, in the spirit of brainstorming, I try not to squelch any new idea.)
My preference is for C only. In both Winds Aloft and in METARS. For the reason you cited. It's clutter. Which makes it hard to find the information you want quickly.
For example, the primary information that I want in WA is "How close to the freezing level am I?" That is most easily seen in degrees C, since zero is the magic number. And since Flight Service and PIREPS reports all that in C, it's easiest to think consistently in those terms when I'm struggling in flight to stay out of ice.
As for METARs, although it might be cool to know that it's 85 degrees Fahrenheit when you land, that's not why I listen to ATIS. I mean, it's not like I'm going to decide not to land somewhere because it's too hot or too cold. (Well, actually, I won't land somewhere if it's below freezing on the ground and I have to shoot an ILS in ice fog or clouds. So again, in that situation, I prefer C so that I can easily see that big Zero warning me of danger.)
The only time I care about the temps on the ground is to see what the temp/dew point spread is. And I've learned over the years that, when the temp/dew point spread is 3 degrees C or less, that low vis is problematic. That gets my attention.
Whereas I have no idea what that equivalent spread for danger in degrees F is.
Still, if some want temperatures presented in F, then I think Shane's suggestion of making all temps user selectable (C or F) would be best. Then the Winds Aloft page could go back to an uncluttered presentation of just one temp. That way, you can have your F, and I can have my C and everyone (except maybe Brian, who has to code all this) is happy.