Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CID.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CID
ATC / advisory: Tower CID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flight proceeded normally.  Upon gathering approach and weather information; the AWOS had been reporting a nice calm cool night in CID.  I recall the CA (Captain) and I talking about the weather and being 10 SM and (clear).  As we got closer to CID; I couldn't spot the beacon.  I could see just about unlimited in every direction the area where the airport was being indicated was unlit (black).  As we approached 30 or so miles; it was obvious from the light of the city that there was a low ceiling present in CID.  The ceiling was obviously <1000ft.  I was busy flying the plane; but I recall the Captain hailing Chicago Center about the weather right before Tower and Approach opened.  Upon contacting CID Approach; we were told the ceiling was being listed as 1000 ft. due to the fact the AWOS sky condition was missing and they had not had any PIREPS from other aircraft to accurately determine ceiling height.  We conducted the approach based on the required visibility prescribed for the RNAV [Runway] 27 approach (which we had).  The approach and landing were unremarkable other than the approach itself took us close to minimums to spot the lights and surfaces required to land.  Visibility was fine beneath the ceiling; but the ceiling itself was grossly inaccurate.  After shutdown the CA and I discussed what all had happened and; even though we both concluded we had the visibility to both conduct the approach and land; determined the whole situation was very odd for lack of better terms.  We decided to file to make sure others know about this.  The primary concern being that; even though approach abilities are based in terms of visibility; it's very startling to arrive to a marginal weather.  It was my concern that if the ceiling information was so obviously bad; would it not be unreasonable to doubt the accuracy of the visibility or other parts of the weather as well?  Moreover; if that information is questionable it just felt odd to have an arriving aircraft essentially be the official weather ceiling observation.  I know this happens at airports all over; but the combination of everything just felt odd.  I don't believe this 'event' could have been prevented per se; but I do believe better communication from Tower and Approach would have soothed any fears and probably have prevented this report from being filed.  The Tower informed us the ceiling had been called 1000 ft. due to lack of AWOS/ASOS information and no aircraft had been present to determine ceiling.  It was obviously less than 1000 ft.  Again; the visibility was accurate; but the ceiling being missing and unavailable was very discombobulating for lack of better terms.  I don't think anyone did anything wrong here at all; but the CA and I both agreed filing would be in both our best interest and aviation safety's best interest as well.


Second narrative: The forecast for CID was to be VFR.  Winds were light.  As told by Chicago Center; the ILS Runway 9 was up; but the guy just before us took a visual for Runway 27.  We asked if we could go to JUTUS; for the RNAV Runway 27.  Thinking we would have vertical guidance for landing. FO First Officer briefed the visual; backed up by the approach.  Turning final over JUTUS; we couldn't see the beacon or the runway.  We were a bit surprised.  We did [memory aids] and continued.  The Tower opened; cleared us to land and asked for a base report.  Again; the last weather we had was clear and 10.  As we approached WAVUM; and were still on top of the clouds; I asked just exactly what they were reporting as their weather?  Tower came back with; 10 miles visibility but their AWOS wasn't reporting.  At 600 ft. AGL; we entered the clouds and broke out to see the runway at about 375 ft. AGL.  Far from the clear that had been reported.  We land normally and taxied to the gate.  After we parked; we just didn't feel right about the situation; though the last reported weather was clear and 10; it felt funny shooting an approach to nearly minimums.  Several aircraft landed after us with the ceiling now being reported as a PIREP; ours.	AWOS being down and us and Chicago Center not knowing.  Plus Tower closed until the last minute.Towers need to be open during our operations.


Synopsis: Boeing flight crew reported flying to CID without a current weather report due to the ASOS being out of service.