Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FDY.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G FDY
ATC / advisory: TRACON TOL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight originated from AOH for the purpose of logging IFR approaches in actual conditions and to satisfy future instrument currency requirements. Void time clearance was received by radio on ground from Indianapolis Center. After departure turned towards FDY and established airborne communication with Indy Center above 2500 feet MSL. Radar contact not possible in this area below 4000 MSL but unable to go higher than 3000 due to temperature and possible icing conditions. Center asked for position reports to determine when to hand off to Toledo approach. It seemed the handoff was late as the controller was busy with a lot of traffic. After handoff and checking in with Toledo on 120.8mhz there was a question if I was read my full clearance. I answered yes and was not given an explanation. Controller seemed unhappy.I requested as I had filed for. Direct KASPE intersection and the GPS 36 approach with course reversal at KASPE. Once established on the approach I let them know I intended to make a second RNAV 36 approach then return to AOH. The first approach was normal and I broke out below the overcast as expected; located the runway environment and made a touch and go.On climb out to 3000 feet contacted Toledo again and agreed on Radar Vectors for the second approach. The vector was excellent and I intercepted the inbound course between KASPI and FABKI still at 3000 feet. LPV was confirmed on the GPS and glide slope intercept normal. I was cleared to change to advisory frequency but had not yet. Still in IMC at about 2300 MSL I received a radio call from Toledo reporting a Low Altitude Alert. The Approach was stabilized; the needles were both crossed within the center circle (donut) and it was a mystery to me what was causing the alert. I chose to abort the approach then was cleared to return to AOH at 3000 feet without further incident. Later that evening I loaded the track log in Google earth for further review and did not see any remarkable indication of being below the glide path on the second approach.Upon speaking with another pilot who operates in Toledo airspace I am told this has happened to him more than once. I am beginning to wonder if the limits they are setting for alerts on these approaches are too narrow or restrictive. Toledo approach control has consistently given stellar; friendly and professional handling in all types of weather conditions; training flights and passing through the area or landing. They go above and beyond for student pilots too. In no way do I wish for any of the statements above to reflect negatively.




Synopsis: A pilot conducting practice approaches to FDY Runway 36 in IMC at 2;300 FT; reported being issued a low altitude alert even though the GPS and glideslope appeared normal. The pilot executed a precautionary go-around; but later could find no cause for the alert.