Narrative:

Go around at minimums without field in sight due to low ceiling. Weather reported by ATIS [was] 700 scattered; few at 3000; 10000 broken which was updated to 5000 broken with visibility unlimited. ACARS weather request reports were similar. Coco approach advised similar until we were flying the ILS; when there was a remark that we might gain sight of the field at close to minimums. Similar remarks from tower. After missed approach received estimates of 3000 meter visibility. ATC requested we hold until a new weather observation would come in. Ceiling update was not provided after several queries; only 3000 meter visibility and fog all around the airport. At this moment dispatch was receiving info that ceiling was 5000 feet broken. Landed on second approach; sighting runway environment at minimums of 200 AGL at bingo fuel. Ragged ceiling was mostly 100 to 150 feet overcast; not 5000 feet. Visibility 3 miles. This same unsatisfactory scenario happened last week except that on our supposed VMC approach we broke out at 100 feet above minimums in rain and landed on the wet runway which after our queries was reported to be dry. Obviously we must be able to plan approaches and diverts with accurate information and dispatch must also receive legitimate weather information. The weather reported at departure from this field on [an earlier arrival] was also inaccurate; very low overcast ceilings although reported as 1000 broken; which could impact alternate planning. This is a hazardous pattern that cannot continue. Extremely inaccurate weather reporting for second time this week. Taf; metar; approach control and tower all provided inaccurate weather conditions. Pilots and dispatch must receive weather information that is accurate. Expecting a VFR day versus expecting approach to minimums and possible divert are two very different game plans for pilots.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-800 Captain reported receiving inaccurate weather reports from MROC airport on several different occasions.

Narrative: Go around at minimums without field in sight due to low ceiling. Weather reported by ATIS [was] 700 scattered; Few at 3000; 10000 broken which was updated to 5000 broken with visibility unlimited. ACARS weather request reports were similar. Coco Approach advised similar until we were flying the ILS; when there was a remark that we might gain sight of the field at close to minimums. Similar remarks from Tower. After missed approach received estimates of 3000 meter visibility. ATC requested we hold until a new weather observation would come in. Ceiling update was not provided after several queries; only 3000 meter visibility and fog all around the airport. At this moment Dispatch was receiving info that ceiling was 5000 feet broken. Landed on second approach; sighting runway environment at minimums of 200 AGL at bingo fuel. Ragged ceiling was mostly 100 to 150 feet overcast; not 5000 feet. Visibility 3 miles. This same unsatisfactory scenario happened last week except that on our supposed VMC approach we broke out at 100 feet above minimums in rain and landed on the wet runway which after our queries was reported to be dry. Obviously we must be able to plan approaches and diverts with accurate information and dispatch must also receive legitimate weather information. The weather reported at departure from this field on [an earlier arrival] was also inaccurate; very low overcast ceilings although reported as 1000 broken; which could impact alternate planning. This is a hazardous pattern that cannot continue. Extremely inaccurate weather reporting for second time this week. TAF; METAR; Approach Control and Tower all provided inaccurate weather conditions. Pilots and dispatch must receive weather information that is accurate. Expecting a VFR day versus expecting approach to minimums and possible divert are two very different game plans for pilots.

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.