So Donna wants to get in to this small airstrip near their home. The
weather doesn't permit a visual so she calls hubby/observer Fred and asks
him to take the needed observation for a contact approach because Fred's
station is closed. It sounds like Fred's station is somewhere other than
this small airstrip near their home, so his report is of no value here

Fred's station is in fact at the airport in question, and Fred is there
waiting to pick Susan up after she lands.

But even if it was, wouldn't it be quicker and easier for Susan to
just fly the instrument approach?

If Susan had to call Fred at the house, and Fred had to drive over to
the airport, yes, it probably would be quicker and easier to just fly
the IAP. But if Fred is already there, and they are already in
communication ("Hi honey, are the kids in bed yet?") and the IAF is
twenty miles in the other direction, and Susan is in and out of the
clouds over familiar terrain, a quick call on the radio could save half
an hour. Especially if the approach minima are very high at this
airport (for any number of reasons).

Is he accredited to take weather observations at the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land?

Yes.

Is there a standard or special instrument
approach procedure published and functioning for the small airstrip near his
home where Susan wishes to land?

Yes.

If so, wouldn't it be simpler and easier
for Susan to just fly the IAP?

Sometimes. I'd even venture =usually=. But my hypothetical is aimed
not at what would be easier, but whether such a scenario would be legal,
because that helps illuminate exactly where (in the regs) the hangup is.

Once located, it's a separate question as to whether it should (always)
be that way, but at least we'd be asking the right question. (not that
it would actually do any good!)

For example, in an earlier post you stated that the observation had to
be made when the official station was open, and recorded and
dissemenated according to certain criteria, for it to "count" towards a
contact approach. This would provide a paper trail in case of accident.
However no such paper trail exists for relayed messages of equal
criticality (such as clearances). Far be it from me to expect
consistancy from the FAA, but I at least want to know whether it is =me=
that is wrong, or the =FAA= that is inconsistant.

I have similar pathological cases for "comensation or hire" which appear
to be unintended consequences of the fair share rule.

Jose