C172 instructor pilot experienced questioning from N90 controller after being unable to accept the f...

Attributes
ACN	659366
Time
Date	200505
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mmu.airport
State Reference	NJ
Altitude	msl single value : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : n90.tracon
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : multi engine
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 75 flight time total : 315 flight time type : 185
ASRS Report	659366
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : trainee
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Aircraft Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

I departed on an instrument flight plan en route to mmu; showing my first instrument student actual IMC. I had filed '/U' because the GPS database was expired. I noted 'IFR training' in the remarks. After my second handoff; new york approach advised me to expect the RNAV 5 into mmu; to which I responded 'unable.' I was then advised to expect the NDB 5; to which I also responded 'unable; we're negative ADF.' their next remark to me was; 'so you expect us to drop everything (to vector you)?' I told them to stand by. A few mins later; 'are you really negative ADF or is this a training flight?' my reply; 'affirmative; (we're negative ADF).' after getting vectored around for a hold; I eventually received clearance for the ILS runway 23 at mmu. After clearing the runway; tower advised me to call a number and speak to new york approach. I realize now that I limited myself to only 1 approach and that the nature of the busy new york airspace and actual IMC created perhaps more work for ATC. However; I feel it was entirely unnecessary to have been issued a callback number as if I had been in violation of the FARS.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 INSTRUCTOR PLT EXPERIENCED QUESTIONING FROM N90 CTLR AFTER BEING UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE FIRST 2 APCH PROCS TO MMU THAT WERE OFFERED.

Narrative: I DEPARTED ON AN INST FLT PLAN ENRTE TO MMU; SHOWING MY FIRST INST STUDENT ACTUAL IMC. I HAD FILED '/U' BECAUSE THE GPS DATABASE WAS EXPIRED. I NOTED 'IFR TRAINING' IN THE REMARKS. AFTER MY SECOND HDOF; NEW YORK APCH ADVISED ME TO EXPECT THE RNAV 5 INTO MMU; TO WHICH I RESPONDED 'UNABLE.' I WAS THEN ADVISED TO EXPECT THE NDB 5; TO WHICH I ALSO RESPONDED 'UNABLE; WE'RE NEGATIVE ADF.' THEIR NEXT REMARK TO ME WAS; 'SO YOU EXPECT US TO DROP EVERYTHING (TO VECTOR YOU)?' I TOLD THEM TO STAND BY. A FEW MINS LATER; 'ARE YOU REALLY NEGATIVE ADF OR IS THIS A TRAINING FLT?' MY REPLY; 'AFFIRMATIVE; (WE'RE NEGATIVE ADF).' AFTER GETTING VECTORED AROUND FOR A HOLD; I EVENTUALLY RECEIVED CLRNC FOR THE ILS RWY 23 AT MMU. AFTER CLRING THE RWY; TWR ADVISED ME TO CALL A NUMBER AND SPEAK TO NEW YORK APCH. I REALIZE NOW THAT I LIMITED MYSELF TO ONLY 1 APCH AND THAT THE NATURE OF THE BUSY NEW YORK AIRSPACE AND ACTUAL IMC CREATED PERHAPS MORE WORK FOR ATC. HOWEVER; I FEEL IT WAS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED A CALLBACK NUMBER AS IF I HAD BEEN IN VIOLATION OF THE FARS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.

C172 instructor pilot experienced questioning from N90 controller after being unable to accept the first 2 approach procedures to mmu that were offered.