Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight was Part 91 and I was flying in the right seat as the pilot not flying.We were being vectored for the ILS to Runway 19 at TEB but due to snow removal at the TEB airport ATC i.e.; New York Approach changed the approach to the VOR 24 to TEB. ATC changed it when we were about 10 NM from the airport necessitating some quick thinking and re-briefing of the new approach all the while being fairly close to the airport on vectors.As a crew I feel that we did a good job of briefing the new approach i.e.; VOR 24. The pilot flying seemed to be a little confused as to whether he could fly this approach using blue needles (GPS) vs. Green needles (raw approach VOR) and I conveyed to him that we could indeed fly the approach in blue needles (GPS). Instead he previewed the approach in blue needles but then switched to green needles without really advising me what he was doing. This pilot has a history of poor crew resource management (CRM) and it was evident during this approach. Should we have abandoned the approach? No I don't think so because I simply reverted to monitoring the approach as he flew as raw data VOR approach and not GPS.Because the pilot flying used raw data green needles approach he was unable to use the VNAV function of the Flight Guidance Control (FGC) and instead this approach became a so called dive and drive using vertical speed on the FGC down to the MDA of 500 FT MSL.The approach seemed to be doing well when TEB Tower called us and said that they had a low altitude alert on us. I had been monitoring the altitudes on the approach and looked again and saw we were at the MDA of 500 FT MSL which is in the parameters of the approach. I'm not sure why TEB Tower saw a low altitude alert on our aircraft.We saw the runway at about 2.5 NM and made a stabilized approach and landed on Runway 24.This particular pilot who was the pilot flying did not want to de-brief and I think in retrospect he should have been clearer as to how he was going to fly this approach utilizing the FGC. Poor CRM on his part and I should of been more assertive with asking questions during the briefing.




Synopsis: A Corporate aircraft on the TEB VOR 24 was issued an ATC low altitude alert at 500 FT but the crew felt that altitude was within the MDA parameters. Poor CRM was noted during the approach preparation phase.