Narrative:

While on a VFR flight to ttn (10.2 NM) we experienced a near miss incident with [a CE750] while attempting to execute a straight in visual approach to runway 24 at ttn. While executing the visual approach; the student made several radio calls advising his intentions at 9; 5 and 4 NM from the field. We were also communicating with [another] 172 aircraft also in the pattern at ttn entering on a left downwind. After our 4 NM final transmission; [the CE750] checked in on CTAF and called 'ttn traffic - visual 24; 4 mile final.' the call was quick so I confirmed whether the call was [the other 172] who was on the left downwind. They stated 'no; [we are] on the left downwind.'I was confused by the call because we had been on CTAF for several minutes and were communicating with the [other 172] aircraft and there were no other radio calls yet on the frequency. After [the CE750] made their call; and my communication to [the other 172]; [the CE750] flew over our right wing. By my estimation the separation was within 50'-100'. It was close enough to hear the engines and smell the exhaust.we had been on the CTAF frequency for about 5 minutes prior to this incident and announcing our intentions as soon as we departed and at no time was [the CE750] on the frequency.after the incident; I stated on the CTAF: 'wow; that was close; let's try to be safe out here.'[the CE750] replied stating we should not be doing straight in approaches to an airport like ttn with IFR traffic. He also continued to state that regulation 91.126 clearly states that this is illegal.the exchange continued a few minutes at which point I told the pilot I would meet him on the ramp. We discussed the situation for several minutes and the pilot was very angry and upset. I continued to explain that we were making our radio calls and we did not break any far or procedure for ttn and that he should have given way to us as we were in front of him and at a lower altitude with no idea he was ever there. After listening to tapes; our target was clearly called out to [the CE750] by phl approach as an aircraft that appeared to be on final approach to runway 24 at ttn.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 Instructor pilot reported a NMAC with a CE750 in the pattern at TTN airport.

Narrative: While on a VFR flight to TTN (10.2 NM) we experienced a near miss incident with [a CE750] while attempting to execute a straight in visual approach to Runway 24 at TTN. While executing the visual approach; the student made several radio calls advising his intentions at 9; 5 and 4 NM from the field. We were also communicating with [another] 172 aircraft also in the pattern at TTN entering on a left downwind. After our 4 NM final transmission; [the CE750] checked in on CTAF and called 'TTN traffic - Visual 24; 4 mile final.' The call was quick so I confirmed whether the call was [the other 172] who was on the left downwind. They stated 'NO; [we are] on the left downwind.'I was confused by the call because we had been on CTAF for several minutes and were communicating with the [other 172] aircraft and there were no other radio calls yet on the frequency. After [the CE750] made their call; and my communication to [the other 172]; [the CE750] flew over our right wing. By my estimation the separation was within 50'-100'. It was close enough to hear the engines and smell the exhaust.We had been on the CTAF frequency for about 5 minutes prior to this incident and announcing our intentions as soon as we departed and at no time was [the CE750] on the frequency.After the incident; I stated on the CTAF: 'Wow; that was close; let's try to be safe out here.'[The CE750] replied stating we should not be doing straight in approaches to an airport like TTN with IFR traffic. He also continued to state that regulation 91.126 clearly states that this is illegal.The exchange continued a few minutes at which point I told the pilot I would meet him on the ramp. We discussed the situation for several minutes and the pilot was very angry and upset. I continued to explain that we were making our radio calls and we did not break any FAR or procedure for TTN and that he should have given way to us as we were in front of him and at a lower altitude with no idea he was ever there. After listening to tapes; our target was clearly called out to [the CE750] by PHL Approach as an aircraft that appeared to be on final approach to Runway 24 at TTN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.