Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 65; Flight Crew Total 6000; Flight Crew Type 3000
Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
General None Reported / Taken
Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
The [G-1000] equipped [aircraft]; with two pilots; arrived VFR at BRD after cancelling IFR during an instrument training flight.  The aircraft was refueled while the crew ate. After paying for gas; the crew consulted foreflight via [the tablet] and found the field to be marginal VFR according to the flight condition indicators and the METAR.  The crew then visited the restroom and headed out to the aircraft.  During the pre-taxi check; the ASOS was tuned; but there was no audio and the XM weather was not yet downloaded to the G-1000 from the satellite.  Another aircraft was observed flying to the northwest several miles away; so visibility and ceiling were not a problem.  Taxi and pre-takeoff checks and procedures were normal.  The aircraft departed via Taxiway C intersection on Runway 23.  On climb-out; the non-flying pilot (NFP) zoomed out the [G-1000] MFD map from close-in taxiway depiction to 5 miles.  At that point; the NFP noticed that the METAR flag on the BRD symbol was indicating IFR.  The foreflight on the [tablet] was consulted again; and still showed MVFR; [foreflight uses a different indicator than the G-1000 avionics to indicate MVFR conditions].  Both pilots looked outside in several directions and determined the flight visibility to be 4 plus miles.  Boats and cabins on Long Lake; over 3 miles to the northwest; could plainly be seen.  Re-tuning the ASOS found audio giving 2-1/2 miles and 2;500 BKN to be the broadcast weather. Zooming out the G-1000 found all surrounding airports to be either MVFR or VFR.  No other aircraft were in the area.  One aircraft was on the ground in the arming/run-up area for Runway 16 but had not broadcast departure intentions.  The crew made sure there was sufficient visibility and ceiling to continue VFR and flew south into improving conditions. All airports along the route were reporting VFR.   This incident illustrates the differences that can occur among the numerous weather data sources.  The difference may have been caused by delays in relaying; processing; and uploading/downloading weather through the various systems.  While the ASOS should have been the primary reference; it was not producing audio at start-up.  The frequency was confirmed to be correct.   This also demonstrates the conflict that often occurs between actual and reported weather.  The aircraft spotted several miles northwest before takeoff showed the flight visibility and ceiling to be above minimums. If we had either received the ASOS or had a rapid download from XM weather; we would have investigated the weather further and probably filed IFR out of BRD to cancel immediately south.  This also highlights the age-old question of...does the pilot have the authority to over-rule conditions reported on ASOS (or other weather sources) at uncontrolled fields based on his personal observations.  Everyone; including DE's; FAA FSDO personnel; instructors; pilots; etc...all interpret FAR 91.155 differently.  Would we have over-ruled the ASOS or XM based on what we saw?  I don't know...it wasn't an option this time; anyway.
An instructor pilot reports departing BRD VFR and discovering airborne that the field is IFR. The tablet software showed VFR while the weather in the avionics (G-1000) showed IFR when zoomed out. The ASOS was not transmitting at departure time but later reported 2.5 miles visibility.