Narrative:

On jun/xx/94 at approximately PM30 local in a C208 I was cleared direct to teb at 3000 ft upon reaching, cleared for the ILS runway 22L in ewr. Once I passed the teb VOR, established inbound on the localizer I began to let down to 1500 ft as depicted on the approach profile. As I was going through 1800 ft the tower told me to climb to 2500 ft and that I had conflicting traffic out of teb (a falcon). I climbed to 2500 ft maintaining localizer. The tower then once again cleared me for the approach. The controller began to lecture me on descending to 1500 ft claiming I should not have, even though I was cleared for the ILS. I informed him that I had been cleared for the ILS runway 22L and was proceeding accordingly with those instructions while I had been descending. I was told to call the tower when on the ground. I spoke to the tower supervisor. He maintained that even though I was cleared for the ILS 22L with only the restr of maintaining 3000 ft until teb, that they were still allowed to have traffic out of teb at 1500 ft between the teb VOR and the OM for runway 22L. It seems to me that if I'm cleared for the approach and inside of the teb VOR that this is protected airspace. The very least they should do is inform me of the traffic regardless of any LOA between ewr and teb towers concerning VFR traffic at 1500 ft. I was told the falcon had to deviate and was told there would be a violation filed against me. I maintain that every procedure followed by myself was professional, legal and extremely safe. If the control tower does not want a pilot to follow the published procedures, they should inform him of such. (I have also spoken with several F-27 crews who used the same procedure as I that night.) callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter called back and revealed that he had discussed this incident with his chief pilot and the director of flight training. He was asked to call the ewr tower chief back and 'smooth things out' as the company 'didn't want to make waves' as they had too much scheduled traffic into ewr to be creating hard feelings. The tower chief advised the reporter that 'he was a lot of trouble for his procedure used in the ILS...' and that '...they would be pulling the tapes and he would probably he hearing from them on this....' the reporter has not heard from the ewr facility after this exchange. The tower chief stated that the reporter was 'expected to maintain the 3000 ft until interception of the GS....' the approach plate doesn't note this nor did the clearance issued state this restr. The reporter further stated that, in a review with his fellow pilots, that clrncs are 'sometimes' issued this way and sometimes not. The falcon jet had to perform an evasive maneuver to avoid the reporter's aircraft. The reporter's aircraft was in and out of the clouds during this encounter. Reporter feels that this procedure should be standardized and if ewr wants the approach flown this way that either the clrncs issued should state the restr or the approach plate should reflect this requirement. Reporter feels that this was most likely an operational error as the falcon shouldn't have been there in this night operation. P.south. Is there a LOA between teb and ewr?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POSSIBLE NMAC BTWN ARR DEP TFC.

Narrative: ON JUN/XX/94 AT APPROX PM30 LCL IN A C208 I WAS CLRED DIRECT TO TEB AT 3000 FT UPON REACHING, CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 22L IN EWR. ONCE I PASSED THE TEB VOR, ESTABLISHED INBOUND ON THE LOC I BEGAN TO LET DOWN TO 1500 FT AS DEPICTED ON THE APCH PROFILE. AS I WAS GOING THROUGH 1800 FT THE TWR TOLD ME TO CLB TO 2500 FT AND THAT I HAD CONFLICTING TFC OUT OF TEB (A FALCON). I CLBED TO 2500 FT MAINTAINING LOC. THE TWR THEN ONCE AGAIN CLRED ME FOR THE APCH. THE CTLR BEGAN TO LECTURE ME ON DSNDING TO 1500 FT CLAIMING I SHOULD NOT HAVE, EVEN THOUGH I WAS CLRED FOR THE ILS. I INFORMED HIM THAT I HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 22L AND WAS PROCEEDING ACCORDINGLY WITH THOSE INSTRUCTIONS WHILE I HAD BEEN DSNDING. I WAS TOLD TO CALL THE TWR WHEN ON THE GND. I SPOKE TO THE TWR SUPVR. HE MAINTAINED THAT EVEN THOUGH I WAS CLRED FOR THE ILS 22L WITH ONLY THE RESTR OF MAINTAINING 3000 FT UNTIL TEB, THAT THEY WERE STILL ALLOWED TO HAVE TFC OUT OF TEB AT 1500 FT BTWN THE TEB VOR AND THE OM FOR RWY 22L. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF I'M CLRED FOR THE APCH AND INSIDE OF THE TEB VOR THAT THIS IS PROTECTED AIRSPACE. THE VERY LEAST THEY SHOULD DO IS INFORM ME OF THE TFC REGARDLESS OF ANY LOA BTWN EWR AND TEB TWRS CONCERNING VFR TFC AT 1500 FT. I WAS TOLD THE FALCON HAD TO DEVIATE AND WAS TOLD THERE WOULD BE A VIOLATION FILED AGAINST ME. I MAINTAIN THAT EVERY PROC FOLLOWED BY MYSELF WAS PROFESSIONAL, LEGAL AND EXTREMELY SAFE. IF THE CTL TWR DOES NOT WANT A PLT TO FOLLOW THE PUBLISHED PROCS, THEY SHOULD INFORM HIM OF SUCH. (I HAVE ALSO SPOKEN WITH SEVERAL F-27 CREWS WHO USED THE SAME PROC AS I THAT NIGHT.) CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR CALLED BACK AND REVEALED THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THIS INCIDENT WITH HIS CHIEF PLT AND THE DIRECTOR OF FLT TRAINING. HE WAS ASKED TO CALL THE EWR TWR CHIEF BACK AND 'SMOOTH THINGS OUT' AS THE COMPANY 'DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE WAVES' AS THEY HAD TOO MUCH SCHEDULED TFC INTO EWR TO BE CREATING HARD FEELINGS. THE TWR CHIEF ADVISED THE RPTR THAT 'HE WAS A LOT OF TROUBLE FOR HIS PROC USED IN THE ILS...' AND THAT '...THEY WOULD BE PULLING THE TAPES AND HE WOULD PROBABLY HE HEARING FROM THEM ON THIS....' THE RPTR HAS NOT HEARD FROM THE EWR FACILITY AFTER THIS EXCHANGE. THE TWR CHIEF STATED THAT THE RPTR WAS 'EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN THE 3000 FT UNTIL INTERCEPTION OF THE GS....' THE APCH PLATE DOESN'T NOTE THIS NOR DID THE CLRNC ISSUED STATE THIS RESTR. THE RPTR FURTHER STATED THAT, IN A REVIEW WITH HIS FELLOW PLTS, THAT CLRNCS ARE 'SOMETIMES' ISSUED THIS WAY AND SOMETIMES NOT. THE FALCON JET HAD TO PERFORM AN EVASIVE MANEUVER TO AVOID THE RPTR'S ACFT. THE RPTR'S ACFT WAS IN AND OUT OF THE CLOUDS DURING THIS ENCOUNTER. RPTR FEELS THAT THIS PROC SHOULD BE STANDARDIZED AND IF EWR WANTS THE APCH FLOWN THIS WAY THAT EITHER THE CLRNCS ISSUED SHOULD STATE THE RESTR OR THE APCH PLATE SHOULD REFLECT THIS REQUIREMENT. RPTR FEELS THAT THIS WAS MOST LIKELY AN OPERROR AS THE FALCON SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THERE IN THIS NIGHT OP. P.S. IS THERE A LOA BTWN TEB AND EWR?

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.