Narrative:

ZAU had given the WX for otm (an uncontrolled airport with ZAU services as approach control) as clear and 2 mi visibility. On short final the captain called 'airport in sight, cancel the IFR.' while taxiing for departure, about 5 mins later, the captain said we would pick up the IFR in flight. I reminded him that the WX was reported as 2 mi visibility, and asked if I should try to get a clearance on the ground. He approved. I could not reach center, and upon reaching the end of the runway I said, 'we can't go west/O a clearance.' he responded, 'just watch.' he later said the the visibility was 4 mi (which I believe is true) and that chicago had old WX. Problem #1: the captain's lack of concern for regulations. I am sure that he was aware of the regulations concerning control zones. He apparently thought that he would not get caught, and that it was safe. Solution: the FAA seems eager to violate pilots that get caught making simple mistakes, but apparently does not have a system of reporting infractions west/O issuing violations. If controllers could record these violations west/O issuing violations, and west/O extensive paperwork, there would be a record of mistakes on certain pilots that would be cause for review if a trend is found. Problem #2: my own inexperience as a commuter pilot led to my reluctance to take immediate action. Solution: more crew training.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER ACFT LANDED AT UNCONTROLLED FIELD. UNABLE TO CONTACT CENTER FOR DEP CLRNC. WX REPORTED AS 2 MILES VISIBILITY. CAPT CHOSE TO TKOF ANYWAY.

Narrative: ZAU HAD GIVEN THE WX FOR OTM (AN UNCONTROLLED ARPT WITH ZAU SVCS AS APCH CTL) AS CLR AND 2 MI VISIBILITY. ON SHORT FINAL THE CAPT CALLED 'ARPT IN SIGHT, CANCEL THE IFR.' WHILE TAXIING FOR DEP, ABOUT 5 MINS LATER, THE CAPT SAID WE WOULD PICK UP THE IFR IN FLT. I REMINDED HIM THAT THE WX WAS RPTED AS 2 MI VISIBILITY, AND ASKED IF I SHOULD TRY TO GET A CLRNC ON THE GND. HE APPROVED. I COULD NOT REACH CENTER, AND UPON REACHING THE END OF THE RWY I SAID, 'WE CAN'T GO W/O A CLRNC.' HE RESPONDED, 'JUST WATCH.' HE LATER SAID THE THE VISIBILITY WAS 4 MI (WHICH I BELIEVE IS TRUE) AND THAT CHICAGO HAD OLD WX. PROB #1: THE CAPT'S LACK OF CONCERN FOR REGS. I AM SURE THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE REGS CONCERNING CTL ZONES. HE APPARENTLY THOUGHT THAT HE WOULD NOT GET CAUGHT, AND THAT IT WAS SAFE. SOLUTION: THE FAA SEEMS EAGER TO VIOLATE PLTS THAT GET CAUGHT MAKING SIMPLE MISTAKES, BUT APPARENTLY DOES NOT HAVE A SYS OF RPTING INFRACTIONS W/O ISSUING VIOLATIONS. IF CTLRS COULD RECORD THESE VIOLATIONS W/O ISSUING VIOLATIONS, AND W/O EXTENSIVE PAPERWORK, THERE WOULD BE A RECORD OF MISTAKES ON CERTAIN PLTS THAT WOULD BE CAUSE FOR REVIEW IF A TREND IS FOUND. PROB #2: MY OWN INEXPERIENCE AS A COMMUTER PLT LED TO MY RELUCTANCE TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION. SOLUTION: MORE CREW TRNING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.