Reporter alleges the AWOS equipment (automatic WX observing reporting system) is placed in an area w...

Attributes
ACN	195049
Time
Date	199111
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : rkd
State Reference	ME
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 140 flight time total : 3500 flight time type : 1450
ASRS Report	195049
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Airport
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

We were preparing to begin our descent into rkd when brunswick approach informed us that according to the rkd AWOS conditions were below VFR. Brunswick instructed us to turn left to a heading of 220 degrees which was a vector for the localizer DME runway 3. At this point, we were VFR and could see the airport. We advised brunswick of the situation and then contacted our company. The agent in rkd who is a certified WX observer made a report of clear skies and 12 mi visibility. We then relayed the WX information to brunswick approach and then cancelled our IFR clearance. Upon landing in rko I questioned the agent as to the validity of the AWOS. He informed me the AWOS was placed a reasonable distance from the runway and very close to a small stream. The agent also informed me that routinely a small amount of fog will form close to the AWOS thus reducing the WX observations even though the airport itself is clear. It would seem to me that either the AWOS should be moved to a more realistic location or certified unreliable.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR ALLEGES THE AWOS EQUIP (AUTOMATIC WX OBSERVING RPTING SYS) IS PLACED IN AN AREA WHERE VERY LOCALIZED FOG CAN CAUSE A SERIOUS ERRONEOUS ARPT CONDITION RPT.

Narrative: WE WERE PREPARING TO BEGIN OUR DSCNT INTO RKD WHEN BRUNSWICK APCH INFORMED US THAT ACCORDING TO THE RKD AWOS CONDITIONS WERE BELOW VFR. BRUNSWICK INSTRUCTED US TO TURN L TO A HDG OF 220 DEGS WHICH WAS A VECTOR FOR THE LOC DME RWY 3. AT THIS POINT, WE WERE VFR AND COULD SEE THE ARPT. WE ADVISED BRUNSWICK OF THE SITUATION AND THEN CONTACTED OUR COMPANY. THE AGENT IN RKD WHO IS A CERTIFIED WX OBSERVER MADE A RPT OF CLR SKIES AND 12 MI VISIBILITY. WE THEN RELAYED THE WX INFO TO BRUNSWICK APCH AND THEN CANCELLED OUR IFR CLRNC. UPON LNDG IN RKO I QUESTIONED THE AGENT AS TO THE VALIDITY OF THE AWOS. HE INFORMED ME THE AWOS WAS PLACED A REASONABLE DISTANCE FROM THE RWY AND VERY CLOSE TO A SMALL STREAM. THE AGENT ALSO INFORMED ME THAT ROUTINELY A SMALL AMOUNT OF FOG WILL FORM CLOSE TO THE AWOS THUS REDUCING THE WX OBSERVATIONS EVEN THOUGH THE ARPT ITSELF IS CLR. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT EITHER THE AWOS SHOULD BE MOVED TO A MORE REALISTIC LOCATION OR CERTIFIED UNRELIABLE.

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.

Reporter alleges the AWOS equipment (automatic WX observing reporting system) is placed in an area where very localized fog can cause a serious erroneous airport condition report.