DURING NIGHT IMC; IN SNOW; RAIN AND TURB; A B737-200 CAPT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PIT TRACON CTLR'S USE OF THE PHRASE; 'EXPECT THE SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH.' THE CAPT COULD ONLY FIND THE 'ILS RWY 28R' AND 'CONVERGING ILS RWY 28R' APCH PLATES AND WHEN HE STATED SUCH; THE CTLR VECTORED HIM AWAY FROM THE ARPT.

Narrative

UPON CONTACTING PIT APCH CTL; I WAS TOLD TO EXPECT 'SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH.' A SEARCH OF COMMERCIAL CHART APCHES REVEALED AN 'ILS RWY 28R' AND A 'CONVERGING ILS RWY 28R;' BUT NO 'SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH.' I EXPLAINED TO THE CTLR THAT I COULD ACCEPT AN 'ILS RWY 28R' APCH; BUT NOT A 'SIMULTANEOUS ILS RWY 28R APCH' AS I DID NOT CARRY AN APCH LABELED AS SUCH. I COULD ACCEPT AN 'ILS RWY 28R' APCH WITH SIMULTANEOUS APCHES BEING CONDUCTED TO RWY 28L; BUT THIS WAS NOT OFFERED. INSTEAD; THE CTLR INFORMED ME I WOULD BE VECTORED AWAY TEMPORARILY 'IF I NEEDED THE RWY TO MYSELF.' I ACCEPTED THE VECTORS; AND (AFTER A SHORT DELAY) AN ILS RWY 28R APCH TO AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. UPON LNDG I WAS TOLD TO CONTACT ATC REGARDING THIS EVENT. BASICALLY; THIS EVENT CENTERS AROUND THE CTLR'S USE OF THE WORD 'SIMULTANEOUS' IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NAME OF THE APCH. CTLRS ARE USUALLY VERY SPECIFIC AND PRECISE IN USING THE EXACT NAME OF AN APCH (FOR EXAMPLE; WHEN A GLIDE SLOPE TRANSMITTER IS OUT OF SVC; ACFT ARE STILL GIVEN CLRNC FOR AN 'ILS RWY XX' APCH; EVEN THOUGH IT CLRLY MUST BE FLOWN AS A LOC APCH.) ALSO; THE FACT THAT ILS APCHES WERE BEING FLOWN TO THE PARALLEL RWY (28L) WAS IN THE ATIS; AND A NOTE IN THE RWY 28R APCH STATED THAT SIMULTANEOUS APCHES WERE PERMITTED. FINALLY; THE CTLR'S COMMENT REGARDING MY NEEDING 'THE RWY TO MYSELF' DID NOTHING TO CLARIFY THE SITUATION. IT FURTHER REINFORCED MY BELIEF THAT THE CTLR WAS ATTEMPTING TO CLR ME FOR A PROC I WAS NEITHER EQUIPPED NOR TRAINED FOR.