Narrative:

We were on a VFR flight plan initially, with VFR conditions expected and forecast. After takeoff from cnm, we could see hobbs city and airport as usual. Shortly thereafter, both disappeared. As we got nearer, we found that there was a cloud line which was about 3 mi wide and as long as we could see. As we descended to approximately 1000 ft AGL, we could easily see that the visibility under the clouds was excellent, just as elsewhere. With the situation we had, we could have easily ducked under the clouds and gotten in VFR legally. Instead, the captain opted to get on IFR clearance from ZFW and shoot an ILS runway 3. By our operations manual, there must be a visibility report before we can execute an IFR approach. I feel that the last report made which was about 2 hours old is probably too old to suffice. The captain claims that our observation is legal to suffice, and I feel that it should be. However, another captain claims that the person observing the visibility has to be certified as such and/or a part of the ATC system and on the surface, and that we therefore made an illegal approach. Who is right? I would really like to know since it is definite possibility that the situation could arise again. Additional notes: hobbs has a tower, but it was closed for the night. After breaking out on the ILS, the bases were about 900 ft AGL, and thin enough that the moon was easily visible through them (about 2-300 ft). A VFR approach could have been flown with less than 1 to 2 mi, being below 1000 ft AGL in a well known area and visibility after breaking through the clouds was estimated to be in excess of 30 mi (probably 70 to 100 mi). I can be hard to reach by phone, so please send a reply soon.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN LTT ACR MADE AN INST APCH WITHOUT CURRENT WX AND A WX OBSERVER ON DUTY.

Narrative: WE WERE ON A VFR FLT PLAN INITIALLY, WITH VFR CONDITIONS EXPECTED AND FORECAST. AFTER TKOF FROM CNM, WE COULD SEE HOBBS CITY AND ARPT AS USUAL. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, BOTH DISAPPEARED. AS WE GOT NEARER, WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS A CLOUD LINE WHICH WAS ABOUT 3 MI WIDE AND AS LONG AS WE COULD SEE. AS WE DSNDED TO APPROX 1000 FT AGL, WE COULD EASILY SEE THAT THE VISIBILITY UNDER THE CLOUDS WAS EXCELLENT, JUST AS ELSEWHERE. WITH THE SITUATION WE HAD, WE COULD HAVE EASILY DUCKED UNDER THE CLOUDS AND GOTTEN IN VFR LEGALLY. INSTEAD, THE CAPT OPTED TO GET ON IFR CLRNC FROM ZFW AND SHOOT AN ILS RWY 3. BY OUR OPS MANUAL, THERE MUST BE A VISIBILITY RPT BEFORE WE CAN EXECUTE AN IFR APCH. I FEEL THAT THE LAST RPT MADE WHICH WAS ABOUT 2 HRS OLD IS PROBABLY TOO OLD TO SUFFICE. THE CAPT CLAIMS THAT OUR OBSERVATION IS LEGAL TO SUFFICE, AND I FEEL THAT IT SHOULD BE. HOWEVER, ANOTHER CAPT CLAIMS THAT THE PERSON OBSERVING THE VISIBILITY HAS TO BE CERTIFIED AS SUCH AND/OR A PART OF THE ATC SYS AND ON THE SURFACE, AND THAT WE THEREFORE MADE AN ILLEGAL APCH. WHO IS RIGHT? I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW SINCE IT IS DEFINITE POSSIBILITY THAT THE SITUATION COULD ARISE AGAIN. ADDITIONAL NOTES: HOBBS HAS A TWR, BUT IT WAS CLOSED FOR THE NIGHT. AFTER BREAKING OUT ON THE ILS, THE BASES WERE ABOUT 900 FT AGL, AND THIN ENOUGH THAT THE MOON WAS EASILY VISIBLE THROUGH THEM (ABOUT 2-300 FT). A VFR APCH COULD HAVE BEEN FLOWN WITH LESS THAN 1 TO 2 MI, BEING BELOW 1000 FT AGL IN A WELL KNOWN AREA AND VISIBILITY AFTER BREAKING THROUGH THE CLOUDS WAS ESTIMATED TO BE IN EXCESS OF 30 MI (PROBABLY 70 TO 100 MI). I CAN BE HARD TO REACH BY PHONE, SO PLEASE SEND A REPLY SOON.

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.