TRACON controller points out problems with the ASOS.

Attributes
ACN	426676
Time
Date	199901
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : pns
State Reference	FL
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : approach controller : departure
Experience	controller military : 8 controller radar : 11 controller supervisory : 5
ASRS Report	426676
Events
Anomaly	inflight encounter : weather other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	other
Situations
Airport	procedure or policy : unspecified

Narrative:

While working arrival/departure at pns TRACON, I became concerned with the accuracy of the ASOS in use at pns airport. The ASOS was reporting the WX as clear with 10 mi visibility. The actual WX conditions, pilot observed/verified were scattered to mostly broken ceilings from 1500 ft MSL to 2500 ft or so. VMC dscnts were, if not impossible, extremely difficult. Aircraft on VFR flts were having to pick up local IFR clrncs to conduct practice instrument approachs. The reliability of the automated system(south) at controled airports, from my experience, is not consistent, nor are the reports accurate. While I would agree that these automated system are a useful took at uncontrolled airports, they should not replace WX certified observers at controled airports, simply as a cost savings measure. In my opinion, this inaccurate information provided to low time, low experienced VFR rated pilots can cause a false sense of one's abilities and lead them into a poor decision. Bring back the observers!

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON CTLR POINTS OUT PROBS WITH THE ASOS.

Narrative: WHILE WORKING ARR/DEP AT PNS TRACON, I BECAME CONCERNED WITH THE ACCURACY OF THE ASOS IN USE AT PNS ARPT. THE ASOS WAS RPTING THE WX AS CLR WITH 10 MI VISIBILITY. THE ACTUAL WX CONDITIONS, PLT OBSERVED/VERIFIED WERE SCATTERED TO MOSTLY BROKEN CEILINGS FROM 1500 FT MSL TO 2500 FT OR SO. VMC DSCNTS WERE, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. ACFT ON VFR FLTS WERE HAVING TO PICK UP LCL IFR CLRNCS TO CONDUCT PRACTICE INST APCHS. THE RELIABILITY OF THE AUTOMATED SYS(S) AT CTLED ARPTS, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, IS NOT CONSISTENT, NOR ARE THE RPTS ACCURATE. WHILE I WOULD AGREE THAT THESE AUTOMATED SYS ARE A USEFUL TOOK AT UNCTLED ARPTS, THEY SHOULD NOT REPLACE WX CERTIFIED OBSERVERS AT CTLED ARPTS, SIMPLY AS A COST SAVINGS MEASURE. IN MY OPINION, THIS INACCURATE INFO PROVIDED TO LOW TIME, LOW EXPERIENCED VFR RATED PLTS CAN CAUSE A FALSE SENSE OF ONE'S ABILITIES AND LEAD THEM INTO A POOR DECISION. BRING BACK THE OBSERVERS!

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.