C210 pilot describes an ATC request to cancel IFR prior to landing at ldj so as not to impact ewr ar...

Narrative:

I was on an IFR flight plan to ldj. I had never flown into ldj before and it was going to be dusk at the time of arrival and I wanted an approach to find the airport. The flight was fine and I was told conditions were VFR at linden but I stated I wanted an approach to see the airport at that time of night. I was given vectors to the GPS a approach and while on the approach I was monitoring the unicom frequency at linden. While [I was] executing the approach the controller asked me if I could do the visual and if I new the cancellation procedures for linden. He told me that if I did the full approach traffic into and out of newark would need to be stopped. That surprised me as I had no idea (nor can I find any information that states that occurs). He briefed me on the cancellation procedure which needed to be done prior to bautz. When I got to bautz I canceled and saw the airport. During this discussing I remained above the approach angle but was low enough to safely make the approach. I canceled and announced my intentions on the unicom to land runway 9. I did not hear any response and continued. On final a plane announced it was on final to runway 27. I did see it and at about 200 ft executed missed approach and entered a downwind to 27. I landed uneventfully and there was no issue.I felt the lack of information available stating issues with newark's traffic causes a lot of discussion and may have diverted my attention from listening to traffic in the pattern at linden. Upon landing I spoke with the landing aircraft pilot who stated that these issues are not entirely uncommon especially with pilots who's native language is not english as well as when there is a lot of traffic to watch. I also called the new york TRACON and spoke to a controller who explained to me the need to protect the missed approach procedure for IFR traffic landing linden. I think in visual conditions it should be mentioned that the IFR procedure may not be advised. This is very busy airspace and if a procedure is going to affect major traffic it should be easily seen on a chart. I could not find it. The controllers at newark were great; I think this is just a busy place with a lot going on and being so close to an uncontrolled airport adds to the busyness.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C210 pilot describes an ATC request to cancel IFR prior to landing at LDJ so as not to impact EWR arrivals. Extra time spent communicating with ATC prevents monitoring CTAF resulting in a go around on short final due to traffic landing opposite direction.

Narrative: I was on an IFR flight plan to LDJ. I had never flown into LDJ before and it was going to be dusk at the time of arrival and I wanted an approach to find the airport. The flight was fine and I was told conditions were VFR at Linden but I stated I wanted an approach to see the airport at that time of night. I was given vectors to the GPS A approach and while on the approach I was monitoring the UNICOM frequency at Linden. While [I was] executing the approach the Controller asked me if I could do the visual and if I new the cancellation procedures for Linden. He told me that if I did the full approach traffic into and out of Newark would need to be stopped. That surprised me as I had no idea (nor can I find any information that states that occurs). He briefed me on the cancellation procedure which needed to be done prior to BAUTZ. When I got to BAUTZ I canceled and saw the airport. During this discussing I remained above the approach angle but was low enough to safely make the approach. I canceled and announced my intentions on the UNICOM to land Runway 9. I did not hear any response and continued. On final a plane announced it was on final to Runway 27. I did see it and at about 200 FT executed missed approach and entered a downwind to 27. I landed uneventfully and there was no issue.I felt the lack of information available stating issues with Newark's traffic causes a lot of discussion and may have diverted my attention from listening to traffic in the pattern at Linden. Upon landing I spoke with the landing aircraft pilot who stated that these issues are not entirely uncommon especially with pilots who's native language is not English as well as when there is a lot of traffic to watch. I also called the New York TRACON and spoke to a Controller who explained to me the need to protect the missed approach procedure for IFR traffic landing Linden. I think in visual conditions it should be mentioned that the IFR procedure may not be advised. This is very busy airspace and if a procedure is going to affect major traffic it should be easily seen on a chart. I could not find it. The Controllers at Newark were great; I think this is just a busy place with a lot going on and being so close to an uncontrolled airport adds to the busyness.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	982887
Time
Date	201112
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	LDJ.Airport
State Reference	NJ
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C 210D
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Route In Use	Vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Single Pilot Pilot Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Private Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 40 Flight Crew Total 2500 Flight Crew Type 700
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict
Miss Distance	Horizontal 5000 Vertical 200

C210 pilot describes an ATC request to cancel IFR prior to landing at ldj so as not to impact ewr arrivals. Extra time spent communicating with ATC prevents monitoring CTAF resulting in a go around on short final due to traffic landing opposite direction.