Narrative:

I was the pilot of an aircraft with passenger, returning to westchester county airport from the philadelphia area. Before departing, I received a WX briefing which indicated that the WX at westchester county airport was, among other things, scattered clouds at 4000', visibility 6 mi. While navigating between the solberg VOR and the sparta VOR, I observed that the WX was beginning to become less than that reported for westchester county airport. Clouds were lowering and the visibility was approximately 3 mi. On reaching the sparta VOR, I was monitoring ny approach on frequency 126.40. Another aircraft contacted ny approach and requested vectors for an ILS approach to runway 16 at west. The controller responded, 'why would you want an ILS approach?' the pilot responded, 'visibility is very poor and I can't see the airport.' I was also monitoring the westchester ATIS, which was reporting scattered clouds at 4000' visibility 6 mi. The controller then responded to the previous pilot's request for an ILS approach into runway 16 by saying that he was probably in a local squall or cloud but would give him vectors toward the airport. Approximately 15 mi west of westchester county airport, the controller assigned me a transponder code and told me to proceed for a straight in approach to runway 11. I was over the tappan zee bridge and was unable to see it because of low clouds and poor visibility. I declined runway 11 and requested an ILS approach to runway 16. He complied and vectored me to the north. While monitoring the approach frequency, I heard several other pilots call in and ask for WX at westchester county airport and whether it was still VFR. The approach controller replied with the same information that the ATIS was providing. He stated affirmatively that westchester county airport was still VFR. There was no mention to these pilots calling in that other pilots had previously reported the conditions to be less favorable than stated on the ATIS, nor did he report the other pilots had requested vectors for thee ILS approach because of poor visibility. The approach controller finally returned to me and gave me vectors toward an east direction, but did not vector me south until I had passed the extended centerline of runway 16. I received vectors back to intercept the localizer and G/south. While on the localizer and G/south, we flew the approach down to 800' before barely seeing the approach lights for runway 16. I was switched over to the tower at that point and reported that the visibility appeared to be approximately 1 mi and that the airport was not visible above 800'. The tower controller stated that the ATIS report was being changed. On this particular occasion, I feel that there was a failure on the part of the approach controller to understand and interpret the reports he was receiving from pilots in the area and to relay these reports to other pilots calling in. In addition, there appeared to be no coordination between the tower and approach control, insofar as WX conditions were concerned. Pilot calling in to approach were advised that westchester was still VFR when, in fact, it was IFR. A pilot who was not INS rated or qualified relaying upon these erroneous reports, would quickly find himself in conditions above his capabilities. If the pilot of the small aircraft which crashed into rye lake on 6/thu/90 was not INS rated, and relied upon the reports given by the approach controller, then the cause of the disastrous results is readily apparent. I believe that the safety factor sought to be achieved by the ATC system falls far short of its mark when the approach controller fails or refuses to pass on to pilots PIREPS which completely contradict published ATIS reports of VFR WX and in so doing mislead pilots into proceeding toward an area where they have no business being.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA PLT THINKS HE AND OTHER GA PLTS WERE LED UP THE GARDEN PATH BY N90 WHEN APCH CTLR FAILED TO FORWARD PLT WX REPORTS AND CONTINUED TO GIVE OUTDATED ATIS WX. HPN TWR SLOW TO UPDATE DETERIORATING WX ON ATIS.

Narrative: I WAS THE PLT OF AN ACFT WITH PAX, RETURNING TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY ARPT FROM THE PHILADELPHIA AREA. BEFORE DEPARTING, I RECEIVED A WX BRIEFING WHICH INDICATED THAT THE WX AT WESTCHESTER COUNTY ARPT WAS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, SCATTERED CLOUDS AT 4000', VISIBILITY 6 MI. WHILE NAVIGATING BTWN THE SOLBERG VOR AND THE SPARTA VOR, I OBSERVED THAT THE WX WAS BEGINNING TO BECOME LESS THAN THAT RPTED FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY ARPT. CLOUDS WERE LOWERING AND THE VISIBILITY WAS APPROX 3 MI. ON REACHING THE SPARTA VOR, I WAS MONITORING NY APCH ON FREQ 126.40. ANOTHER ACFT CONTACTED NY APCH AND REQUESTED VECTORS FOR AN ILS APCH TO RWY 16 AT W. THE CTLR RESPONDED, 'WHY WOULD YOU WANT AN ILS APCH?' THE PLT RESPONDED, 'VISIBILITY IS VERY POOR AND I CAN'T SEE THE ARPT.' I WAS ALSO MONITORING THE WESTCHESTER ATIS, WHICH WAS RPTING SCATTERED CLOUDS AT 4000' VISIBILITY 6 MI. THE CTLR THEN RESPONDED TO THE PREVIOUS PLT'S REQUEST FOR AN ILS APCH INTO RWY 16 BY SAYING THAT HE WAS PROBABLY IN A LCL SQUALL OR CLOUD BUT WOULD GIVE HIM VECTORS TOWARD THE ARPT. APPROX 15 MI W OF WESTCHESTER COUNTY ARPT, THE CTLR ASSIGNED ME A XPONDER CODE AND TOLD ME TO PROCEED FOR A STRAIGHT IN APCH TO RWY 11. I WAS OVER THE TAPPAN ZEE BRIDGE AND WAS UNABLE TO SEE IT BECAUSE OF LOW CLOUDS AND POOR VISIBILITY. I DECLINED RWY 11 AND REQUESTED AN ILS APCH TO RWY 16. HE COMPLIED AND VECTORED ME TO THE N. WHILE MONITORING THE APCH FREQ, I HEARD SEVERAL OTHER PLTS CALL IN AND ASK FOR WX AT WESTCHESTER COUNTY ARPT AND WHETHER IT WAS STILL VFR. THE APCH CTLR REPLIED WITH THE SAME INFO THAT THE ATIS WAS PROVIDING. HE STATED AFFIRMATIVELY THAT WESTCHESTER COUNTY ARPT WAS STILL VFR. THERE WAS NO MENTION TO THESE PLTS CALLING IN THAT OTHER PLTS HAD PREVIOUSLY RPTED THE CONDITIONS TO BE LESS FAVORABLE THAN STATED ON THE ATIS, NOR DID HE RPT THE OTHER PLTS HAD REQUESTED VECTORS FOR THEE ILS APCH BECAUSE OF POOR VISIBILITY. THE APCH CTLR FINALLY RETURNED TO ME AND GAVE ME VECTORS TOWARD AN E DIRECTION, BUT DID NOT VECTOR ME S UNTIL I HAD PASSED THE EXTENDED CENTERLINE OF RWY 16. I RECEIVED VECTORS BACK TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND G/S. WHILE ON THE LOC AND G/S, WE FLEW THE APCH DOWN TO 800' BEFORE BARELY SEEING THE APCH LIGHTS FOR RWY 16. I WAS SWITCHED OVER TO THE TWR AT THAT POINT AND RPTED THAT THE VISIBILITY APPEARED TO BE APPROX 1 MI AND THAT THE ARPT WAS NOT VISIBLE ABOVE 800'. THE TWR CTLR STATED THAT THE ATIS RPT WAS BEING CHANGED. ON THIS PARTICULAR OCCASION, I FEEL THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APCH CTLR TO UNDERSTAND AND INTERPRET THE RPTS HE WAS RECEIVING FROM PLTS IN THE AREA AND TO RELAY THESE RPTS TO OTHER PLTS CALLING IN. IN ADDITION, THERE APPEARED TO BE NO COORD BTWN THE TWR AND APCH CTL, INSOFAR AS WX CONDITIONS WERE CONCERNED. PLT CALLING IN TO APCH WERE ADVISED THAT WESTCHESTER WAS STILL VFR WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS IFR. A PLT WHO WAS NOT INS RATED OR QUALIFIED RELAYING UPON THESE ERRONEOUS RPTS, WOULD QUICKLY FIND HIMSELF IN CONDITIONS ABOVE HIS CAPABILITIES. IF THE PLT OF THE SMA WHICH CRASHED INTO RYE LAKE ON 6/THU/90 WAS NOT INS RATED, AND RELIED UPON THE RPTS GIVEN BY THE APCH CTLR, THEN THE CAUSE OF THE DISASTROUS RESULTS IS READILY APPARENT. I BELIEVE THAT THE SAFETY FACTOR SOUGHT TO BE ACHIEVED BY THE ATC SYS FALLS FAR SHORT OF ITS MARK WHEN THE APCH CTLR FAILS OR REFUSES TO PASS ON TO PLTS PIREPS WHICH COMPLETELY CONTRADICT PUBLISHED ATIS RPTS OF VFR WX AND IN SO DOING MISLEAD PLTS INTO PROCEEDING TOWARD AN AREA WHERE THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.