Neither the ambient visibility nor the humidity of 50.4% is possible at 36000 feet. It looks more like to be the conditions on the ground. Again where we differ is that you think ignoring this data is the aesthetic choice whereas I think otherwise.
That’s not true. I’ve flown many days when the visibility is well over 90 miles, even at lower altitudes. At high altitudes it’s easily often well over 200 miles, due to the visible horizon being farther off. Depends on location, altitude, and whatever weather system is around. Time of year plays into the latter.
1 Like
No, the ambient RH should be closer to 33%, which, outside of dust/smoke/smog (larger particulates other than water vapor), would definitely not lower visibility like that.
Edit: I’m very curious as to why the ambient temp and dewpoint (obviously taken at the aircraft’s altitude) are producing an incorrect ambient RH value, and why the ambient visibility value is so low, but is apparently not tied to the altitude, nor does it produce an effect on the flight visibility nor the surface visibility directly below.
I’m not saying it should be the choice. I’m saying it is the choice. If the data show otherwise (and it’s dubious where those data are coming from, especially at higher values and altitudes), then they’re simply choosing to ignore it, outside of airports themselves.
I simply don’t think they’re going to be able to accurately reproduce visibility in the intermediate to long ranges (between 10SM and unlimited), especially at altitude because the data are extremely hard to come by in many areas of the world.
I would be okay with this, but you have to have an inversion to make it work. You also could reduce it below the LCL.