Narrative:

I was working the ojaay/dcafr positions in the mtv area. Dca was in a south operation and the reported ceiling was 800 ft broken; the advertised approach was the lda/DME. As the traffic volume increased; pilots began to report the river or airport in sight. Some pilots were reporting the river in sight at 15 DME; not the river but the airport! The reported weather was still showing an 800 ft broken ceiling but the back up weather was showing 800 ft sct. The supervisor was notified and the tower cut a new ATIS which still continued to report an 800 ft ceiling. I called the tower to inquire about the weather out the window and the controller responded that it was clear. I began to issue visual approach or river visual approach clearances. When I was relieved; a discussion broke out in the TRACON about the legality of issuing visual or cvfp approach clearances with the weather indicating that dca was still IFR. I reviewed the 7110.65 and realized that even though the pilots were in VMC flight conditions and getting the airport in sight beyond 10 DME; I could not legally solicit or clear aircraft for visual or river visual approaches. After this episode; the weather reporting equipment was logged OTS and dca officially became VFR! Was this a dangerous operation? In my opinion; I was using the pilots information as well as the tower controllers to verify that dca was actually VFR; so no. Obviously; however; it was not legal. If pilots are allowed to be vectored for an instrument approach but can still be cleared for a visual approach as the 7110.65 states; then the reported weather at the airport with a control tower should be able to use 'common sense' instead of using a sensor that may be faulty or have the only cloud in the sky sitting on top of it.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PCT Controller described an event involving changing weather conditions at DCA when visual/CVAP clearances were issued based upon pilot/tower weather indications; noting legally; the clearances were not authorized.

Narrative: I was working the OJAAY/DCAFR positions in the MTV Area. DCA was in a South Operation and the reported ceiling was 800 FT BKN; the advertised approach was the LDA/DME. As the traffic volume increased; pilots began to report the river or airport in sight. Some pilots were reporting the river in sight at 15 DME; not the river but the airport! The reported weather was still showing an 800 FT broken ceiling but the back up weather was showing 800 FT SCT. The Supervisor was notified and the Tower cut a new ATIS which still continued to report an 800 FT ceiling. I called the Tower to inquire about the weather out the window and the Controller responded that it was clear. I began to issue visual approach or River Visual approach clearances. When I was relieved; a discussion broke out in the TRACON about the legality of issuing visual or CVFP approach clearances with the weather indicating that DCA was still IFR. I reviewed the 7110.65 and realized that even though the pilots were in VMC flight conditions and getting the airport in sight beyond 10 DME; I could not legally solicit or clear aircraft for Visual or River Visual approaches. After this episode; the weather reporting equipment was logged OTS and DCA officially became VFR! Was this a dangerous operation? In my opinion; I was using the pilots information as well as the Tower Controllers to verify that DCA was actually VFR; so no. Obviously; however; it was not legal. If pilots are allowed to be vectored for an instrument approach but can still be cleared for a visual approach as the 7110.65 states; then the reported weather at the airport with a Control Tower should be able to use 'common sense' instead of using a sensor that may be faulty or have the only cloud in the sky sitting on top of it.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.