A CL65 PIC IS REBUKED BY ZNY CTLR FOR REQUESTING THE LONG RWY FOR LNDG BECAUSE OF AN INOP ANTISKID SYS; ADVISING OF AND THEN DECLARING AN EMER FOR THE CREW AT JFK; NY.

Narrative

WITH INBOARD ANTISKID DEFERRED; I REQUESTED THAT CTR GIVE ADVANCE COM TO APCH THAT THE LONG (DEP) RWY WAS REQUESTED. CTR REPLIED THAT NYPA ONLY AUTHORIZED THAT IF AN EMER IS DECLARED; EVEN THOUGH THIS WAS NOT AN EMER BUT RATHER AN ABNORMAL SIT. WE ARE TRAINED THAT GOOD JUDGEMENT/DECISION-MAKING WHEN A LONGER RWY IS APPROPRIATE IS TO CONSIDER AND BE ALERT TO A LONGER RWY BEING AVAILABLE; TO FORCE PLTS TO EITHER IGNORE TRAINING AND CHK RIDES OR TO MISREPRESENT AN ABNORMAL SIT AS AN EMER HAS A NEGATIVE SAFETY IMPACT. I RECOMMEND EITHER ATC AND/OR NYPA RESCIND SUCH POLICIES; OR THAT THE FAA DISALLOW ANTI-SKID DEFERRAL. A SECOND ISSUE IS THAT THOUGH I REPEATED THE REQUEST FOR THE LONGER RWY; I DID NOT DECLARE AN EMER. ATC APCH ASKED FOR SOULS AND FUEL ON BOARD ANYWAY AND HAD THE FAA CONTACT COMPANY AS IF I HAD DECLARED AN EMER. A THIRD ISSUE IS EQUIP WAS ROLLED EVEN THOUGH I SPECIFICALLY DECLINED EQUIP. THE APPEARANCE IS DELIBERATELY 'RAISING THE STAKES' (THE 'PAIN INDEX') FOR DOING WHAT CREWS ARE TRAINED FOR.