Narrative:

Flight proceeded normally. Upon gathering approach and weather information; the AWOS had been reporting a nice calm cool night in cid. I recall the ca (captain) and I talking about the weather and being 10 SM and (clear). As we got closer to cid; I couldn't spot the beacon. I could see just about unlimited in every direction the area where the airport was being indicated was unlit (black). As we approached 30 or so miles; it was obvious from the light of the city that there was a low ceiling present in cid. The ceiling was obviously <1000ft. I was busy flying the plane; but I recall the captain hailing chicago center about the weather right before tower and approach opened. Upon contacting cid approach; we were told the ceiling was being listed as 1000 ft. Due to the fact the AWOS sky condition was missing and they had not had any PIREPS from other aircraft to accurately determine ceiling height. We conducted the approach based on the required visibility prescribed for the RNAV [runway] 27 approach (which we had). The approach and landing were unremarkable other than the approach itself took us close to minimums to spot the lights and surfaces required to land. Visibility was fine beneath the ceiling; but the ceiling itself was grossly inaccurate. After shutdown the ca and I discussed what all had happened and; even though we both concluded we had the visibility to both conduct the approach and land; determined the whole situation was very odd for lack of better terms. We decided to file to make sure others know about this. The primary concern being that; even though approach abilities are based in terms of visibility; it's very startling to arrive to a marginal weather. It was my concern that if the ceiling information was so obviously bad; would it not be unreasonable to doubt the accuracy of the visibility or other parts of the weather as well? Moreover; if that information is questionable it just felt odd to have an arriving aircraft essentially be the official weather ceiling observation. I know this happens at airports all over; but the combination of everything just felt odd. I don't believe this 'event' could have been prevented per se; but I do believe better communication from tower and approach would have soothed any fears and probably have prevented this report from being filed. The tower informed us the ceiling had been called 1000 ft. Due to lack of AWOS/ASOS information and no aircraft had been present to determine ceiling. It was obviously less than 1000 ft. Again; the visibility was accurate; but the ceiling being missing and unavailable was very discombobulating for lack of better terms. I don't think anyone did anything wrong here at all; but the ca and I both agreed filing would be in both our best interest and aviation safety's best interest as well.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Boeing flight crew reported flying to CID without a current weather report due to the ASOS being out of service.

Narrative: Flight proceeded normally. Upon gathering approach and weather information; the AWOS had been reporting a nice calm cool night in CID. I recall the CA (Captain) and I talking about the weather and being 10 SM and (clear). As we got closer to CID; I couldn't spot the beacon. I could see just about unlimited in every direction the area where the airport was being indicated was unlit (black). As we approached 30 or so miles; it was obvious from the light of the city that there was a low ceiling present in CID. The ceiling was obviously <1000ft. I was busy flying the plane; but I recall the Captain hailing Chicago Center about the weather right before Tower and Approach opened. Upon contacting CID Approach; we were told the ceiling was being listed as 1000 ft. due to the fact the AWOS sky condition was missing and they had not had any PIREPS from other aircraft to accurately determine ceiling height. We conducted the approach based on the required visibility prescribed for the RNAV [Runway] 27 approach (which we had). The approach and landing were unremarkable other than the approach itself took us close to minimums to spot the lights and surfaces required to land. Visibility was fine beneath the ceiling; but the ceiling itself was grossly inaccurate. After shutdown the CA and I discussed what all had happened and; even though we both concluded we had the visibility to both conduct the approach and land; determined the whole situation was very odd for lack of better terms. We decided to file to make sure others know about this. The primary concern being that; even though approach abilities are based in terms of visibility; it's very startling to arrive to a marginal weather. It was my concern that if the ceiling information was so obviously bad; would it not be unreasonable to doubt the accuracy of the visibility or other parts of the weather as well? Moreover; if that information is questionable it just felt odd to have an arriving aircraft essentially be the official weather ceiling observation. I know this happens at airports all over; but the combination of everything just felt odd. I don't believe this 'event' could have been prevented per se; but I do believe better communication from Tower and Approach would have soothed any fears and probably have prevented this report from being filed. The Tower informed us the ceiling had been called 1000 ft. due to lack of AWOS/ASOS information and no aircraft had been present to determine ceiling. It was obviously less than 1000 ft. Again; the visibility was accurate; but the ceiling being missing and unavailable was very discombobulating for lack of better terms. I don't think anyone did anything wrong here at all; but the CA and I both agreed filing would be in both our best interest and aviation safety's best interest as well.

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.