Narrative:

At cruise I picked up the ATIS at oma eppley. As usual on the oma ATIS ceiling and visibility was omitted from the report; indicating less than 5 and 5. I did notice that the ILS 32L was in use. When finally handed over from center to approach (40 mi out, approximately), I asked why the ILS was in use if the ceiling and visibility were so good. He didn't understand. So I said 'if the WX is poor enough to use the ILS, why are the ceiling and visibility omitted from the ATIS?' he said 'I don't know.' on approach (ILS 32L) we broke out of a bagged broken 200' above DH. Frustrated, I gave ground a PIREP. We turned around and left within 20 mins with still a highly inaccurate report. According to the first ATIS, the control zone wasn't even in affect. This was an unusual occurrence because of the degree of inaccuracy, but it is very common, in fact standard practice to omit ceiling and visibility at oma. Other cities we serve with the same practice are lnk, mli and dsm. This practice doesn't help the pilot. A pilot needs as much WX information as possible to be able to plan accordingly. It is not unusual to be on a close downwind at a relatively high altitude to oma. This leads the pilot to believe there is a long final. Then when you receive an intercept vector with altitude and speed to lose, the last thing you need is an inaccurate WX report. If it is not clear and visibility unlimited, ceiling and visibility should be reported.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OMA TWR FAILED TO INCLUDE CEILING AND VISIBILITY ON ATIS AS REQUIRED BY FAA HANDBOOK 7110 PT 65F SECTION 9 THIS IS A RECURRENT EVENT. REPORTER STATES LNK, MLI AND DSM ATCTS FOLLOW THIS OMMISSION ON THE ATIS.

Narrative: AT CRUISE I PICKED UP THE ATIS AT OMA EPPLEY. AS USUAL ON THE OMA ATIS CEILING AND VISIBILITY WAS OMITTED FROM THE RPT; INDICATING LESS THAN 5 AND 5. I DID NOTICE THAT THE ILS 32L WAS IN USE. WHEN FINALLY HANDED OVER FROM CTR TO APCH (40 MI OUT, APPROX), I ASKED WHY THE ILS WAS IN USE IF THE CEILING AND VISIBILITY WERE SO GOOD. HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. SO I SAID 'IF THE WX IS POOR ENOUGH TO USE THE ILS, WHY ARE THE CEILING AND VISIBILITY OMITTED FROM THE ATIS?' HE SAID 'I DON'T KNOW.' ON APCH (ILS 32L) WE BROKE OUT OF A BAGGED BROKEN 200' ABOVE DH. FRUSTRATED, I GAVE GND A PIREP. WE TURNED AROUND AND LEFT WITHIN 20 MINS WITH STILL A HIGHLY INACCURATE RPT. ACCORDING TO THE FIRST ATIS, THE CTL ZONE WASN'T EVEN IN AFFECT. THIS WAS AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE BECAUSE OF THE DEG OF INACCURACY, BUT IT IS VERY COMMON, IN FACT STANDARD PRACTICE TO OMIT CEILING AND VISIBILITY AT OMA. OTHER CITIES WE SERVE WITH THE SAME PRACTICE ARE LNK, MLI AND DSM. THIS PRACTICE DOESN'T HELP THE PLT. A PLT NEEDS AS MUCH WX INFO AS POSSIBLE TO BE ABLE TO PLAN ACCORDINGLY. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO BE ON A CLOSE DOWNWIND AT A RELATIVELY HIGH ALT TO OMA. THIS LEADS THE PLT TO BELIEVE THERE IS A LONG FINAL. THEN WHEN YOU RECEIVE AN INTERCEPT VECTOR WITH ALT AND SPD TO LOSE, THE LAST THING YOU NEED IS AN INACCURATE WX RPT. IF IT IS NOT CLR AND VISIBILITY UNLIMITED, CEILING AND VISIBILITY SHOULD BE RPTED.

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.