Narrative:

About 90 miles west of destination I was in cavu (ceiling and visibility unlimited) conditions and nearby airport automated weather reporting systems were reporting that. It [was] still daylight. Earlier in the day the metar was reporting IFR conditions and I expected to land short and stay in a hotel overnight since I am not instrument rated; though I have been receiving instrument training recently.when I got close enough to pick up the ATIS; it was reporting a ceiling of 4700 feet and good visibility so I was happy to think that I could complete my trip instead of having to overnight. My fuel totalizer was indicating that I would have about 13 gallons of fuel left upon arrival. My cruise burn rate is 9.2 gallons per hour but I assume 10 to add a slight safety factor. So; I expected to land with about 1.3 hours of fuel remaining. These numbers compared well with an estimate I made based on flight time since filling the tanks.I climbed to an altitude of 3500 feet MSL so that I would safely clear a ridge just west of [destination]. As I continued to head east a cloud layer appeared underneath me and started to close up and the tops got higher so I had to climb to 5500 feet to maintain VFR. I rechecked the ATIS and it had not changed so I assumed the cloud layer would disappear somewhere prior to and over [destination]. I should have contacted the tower for confirmation but did not because I'd never before found an ATIS report to be in error significantly. Normally; if conditions change significantly; the tower will issue a new special ATIS report without waiting for the normal issuance time.when I was 10 miles west I contacted the tower and said that I had [the current ATIS information] at which point I was told that the ceiling was only 1000 feet; not the 4700 feet reported.since I could not get down to land without going into IMC I told the tower that the ceiling was too low for me and that I was turning back to the west. At this point the fuel totalizer estimated 1.3 hours of fuel remaining but I was concerned about the accuracy. I thought that if I flew to the last known VMC airport I might be very low on fuel and that airport might have gone IMC by the time I got there.so I told center that I needed help and explained the situation. I stated that I had 1 hour of fuel (I wanted to be conservative) and I told them that I was not instrument rated but had instrument training and had flown practice instrument approaches into [destination] a number of times.the controller gave me a squawk code and vectors and started looking for a nearby VMC airport; but even airports at some distance were IMC. I felt that if I flew the kind of distances he was talking about I would be low on fuel and going into an airport that had become IMC in the meantime anyway. I felt that the safer option; especially since he wasn't finding any VMC airports anyway; was to fly the GPS approach; an approach that I had flown a number of times with foggles on as part of my instrument training.as he was vectoring me further away from the airport and still suggesting airports too far away I said that I might have to declare minimum fuel. He complained that I had reported one hour of fuel remaining so I said that was my best estimate but might be in error. I felt it would be much safer to fly the approach with plenty of fuel to shoot the missed approach multiple times; rather than fly to a distant airport that might be IMC and shoot an approach with very little fuel left. At that time; the sun had set and it was completely dark.the controller vectored me onto the GPS runway 6 approach and when I reported established on the approach he turned me over to the tower. I flew the approach as best I could and broke out with about 600 feet of altitude (my very rough estimate). I saw the lighted runway a bit off to my right and landed safely with no excessive maneuvering required.in the hangar I used a dipstick to measure fuel remaining in the tanks. There were 6.5 gallons in each tank meaning I had about 1.3 hours of flight time remaining. I probably could have flown west back to the VMC conditions; but I just could not have been certain of that while still airborne. The uncertainty was due to the accuracy of fuel remaining estimates and the possibility that IMC conditions may have spread to the west.when I first heard the ATIS report I would have landed there in VMC had the actual ceiling of 1000 feet been reported instead of the incorrect 4700 foot ceiling that was reported. The lesson learned for me is that if actual observed conditions look significantly worse than the ATIS is reporting; pilots should contact the tower or center for confirmation as soon as communication is possible.to realize conditions are much worse than previously reported when only 10 miles away from the destination; places excessive strain on the adequacy of the fuel requirements documented in the fars. Even though my fuel on board at the destination was greater than required by the fars (I had 1.3 hours of fuel remaining and the fars require planning on having only 45 minutes VMC night; only 30 minutes VMC day); once I realized the conditions were IMC at my destination it was too late to impose the greater fuel requirements for IMC; though as it turned out I could have flown back to the previous VMC airport (38 minutes) and flown another 40 minutes if I had known my actual fuel remaining instead of an estimate. The 40 minute flight time is very close to the 45 minute flight time required by the fars for IFR planning to an alternate airport.another lesson learned for me is that when overflying IMC; a VFR pilot should immediately impose the greater fuel requirements applied to IFR alternate airports in case the destination airport becomes IMC prior to arrival. Additionally; that pilot should impose the requirements for an alternate VMC airport similar to those required for an alternate airport when flying IFR.finally; the procedures used by ATC to update ATIS information should be examined to be certain the problem I encountered is a rare instance and that no procedural changes are needed. I suspect it is rare since this is the first time I ever found an ATIS report to be significantly in error.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C177 non-instrument rated pilot reported flying an approach to destination airport in IMC conditions because of fuel concerns.

Narrative: About 90 miles west of destination I was in CAVU (Ceiling and Visibility Unlimited) conditions and nearby airport automated weather reporting systems were reporting that. It [was] still daylight. Earlier in the day the METAR was reporting IFR conditions and I expected to land short and stay in a hotel overnight since I am not instrument rated; though I have been receiving instrument training recently.When I got close enough to pick up the ATIS; it was reporting a ceiling of 4700 feet and good visibility so I was happy to think that I could complete my trip instead of having to overnight. My fuel totalizer was indicating that I would have about 13 gallons of fuel left upon arrival. My cruise burn rate is 9.2 gallons per hour but I assume 10 to add a slight safety factor. So; I expected to land with about 1.3 hours of fuel remaining. These numbers compared well with an estimate I made based on flight time since filling the tanks.I climbed to an altitude of 3500 feet MSL so that I would safely clear a ridge just west of [destination]. As I continued to head east a cloud layer appeared underneath me and started to close up and the tops got higher so I had to climb to 5500 feet to maintain VFR. I rechecked the ATIS and it had not changed so I assumed the cloud layer would disappear somewhere prior to and over [destination]. I should have contacted the tower for confirmation but did not because I'd never before found an ATIS report to be in error significantly. Normally; if conditions change significantly; the tower will issue a new special ATIS report without waiting for the normal issuance time.When I was 10 miles west I contacted the tower and said that I had [the current ATIS information] at which point I was told that the ceiling was only 1000 feet; not the 4700 feet reported.Since I could not get down to land without going into IMC I told the tower that the ceiling was too low for me and that I was turning back to the west. At this point the fuel totalizer estimated 1.3 hours of fuel remaining but I was concerned about the accuracy. I thought that if I flew to the last known VMC airport I might be very low on fuel and that airport might have gone IMC by the time I got there.So I told Center that I needed help and explained the situation. I stated that I had 1 hour of fuel (I wanted to be conservative) and I told them that I was not instrument rated but had instrument training and had flown practice instrument approaches into [destination] a number of times.The Controller gave me a squawk code and vectors and started looking for a nearby VMC airport; but even airports at some distance were IMC. I felt that if I flew the kind of distances he was talking about I would be low on fuel and going into an airport that had become IMC in the meantime anyway. I felt that the safer option; especially since he wasn't finding any VMC airports anyway; was to fly the GPS approach; an approach that I had flown a number of times with foggles on as part of my instrument training.As he was vectoring me further away from the airport and still suggesting airports too far away I said that I might have to declare minimum fuel. He complained that I had reported one hour of fuel remaining so I said that was my best estimate but might be in error. I felt it would be much safer to fly the approach with plenty of fuel to shoot the missed approach multiple times; rather than fly to a distant airport that might be IMC and shoot an approach with very little fuel left. At that time; the sun had set and it was completely dark.The controller vectored me onto the GPS runway 6 approach and when I reported established on the approach he turned me over to the tower. I flew the approach as best I could and broke out with about 600 feet of altitude (my very rough estimate). I saw the lighted runway a bit off to my right and landed safely with no excessive maneuvering required.In the hangar I used a dipstick to measure fuel remaining in the tanks. There were 6.5 gallons in each tank meaning I had about 1.3 hours of flight time remaining. I probably could have flown west back to the VMC conditions; but I just could not have been certain of that while still airborne. The uncertainty was due to the accuracy of fuel remaining estimates and the possibility that IMC conditions may have spread to the west.When I first heard the ATIS report I would have landed there in VMC had the actual ceiling of 1000 feet been reported instead of the incorrect 4700 foot ceiling that was reported. The lesson learned for me is that if actual observed conditions look significantly worse than the ATIS is reporting; pilots should contact the tower or center for confirmation as soon as communication is possible.To realize conditions are much worse than previously reported when only 10 miles away from the destination; places excessive strain on the adequacy of the fuel requirements documented in the FARs. Even though my fuel on board at the destination was greater than required by the FARs (I had 1.3 hours of fuel remaining and the FARs require planning on having only 45 minutes VMC night; only 30 minutes VMC day); once I realized the conditions were IMC at my destination it was too late to impose the greater fuel requirements for IMC; though as it turned out I could have flown back to the previous VMC airport (38 minutes) and flown another 40 minutes if I had known my actual fuel remaining instead of an estimate. The 40 minute flight time is very close to the 45 minute flight time required by the FARs for IFR planning to an alternate airport.Another lesson learned for me is that when overflying IMC; a VFR pilot should immediately impose the greater fuel requirements applied to IFR alternate airports in case the destination airport becomes IMC prior to arrival. Additionally; that pilot should impose the requirements for an alternate VMC airport similar to those required for an alternate airport when flying IFR.Finally; the procedures used by ATC to update ATIS information should be examined to be certain the problem I encountered is a rare instance and that no procedural changes are needed. I suspect it is rare since this is the first time I ever found an ATIS report to be significantly in error.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.