An instructor pilot with student on a visual approach to gyi runway 17L reported taking evasive acti...

Narrative:

At 10 miles northeast of gyi; my student (pilot flying) called the tower to establish two-way communication and request landing. The tower instructed us to follow traffic 10 miles north of gyi on a long final to runway 17L and report 4 miles north. At the time; there were several other pilots on the frequency. The tower controller seemed workload saturated but was not to the point of instructing arrivals to remain outside the airspace. With this amount of traffic; my situational awareness was perhaps moderate; and my student's minimal. While we were maneuvering north of the airport; I heard another pilot request a practice approach for runway 17L. The practice approach was approved by the tower with the instruction to remain east of the runway 17L. At around 5 miles north of the airport; the tower asked our position; which I reported as close to 4 miles inbound. Within 30 seconds later; I saw the practice approach aircraft flying head-on opposite of straight-in to the runway; approximately 100 feet below us in the path of our descent. I made an immediate steep turn to the right and informed the tower of the deviation. Based on only brief visual contact with the conflicting aircraft; I estimated our horizontal separation was less than 500 feet. Without a turn; we would have overflown the traffic with negligible separation.chain of events- high density traffic. - Lack of radar service. - Inadequate situational awareness. - Lack of coordination. Human performance considerations- tower controller may have issued unclear instructions that would not result in separation of inbound and outbound traffic. - Tower controller may have lost awareness of the practice approach aircraft's location. - The practice approach pilot may have been unaware of traffic already on final approach in the opposite direction. - My awareness of that aircraft's location was inadequate. - I could have improved my situational awareness by asking for more information about the practice approach traffic. - My student was operating in a situation beyond his level of experience in avoiding collisions.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An instructor pilot with student on a visual approach to GYI Runway 17L reported taking evasive action during a near miss from an aircraft on a practice to the same runway but flying opposite direction.

Narrative: At 10 miles northeast of GYI; my student (pilot flying) called the Tower to establish two-way communication and request landing. The Tower instructed us to follow traffic 10 miles north of GYI on a long final to Runway 17L and report 4 miles north. At the time; there were several other pilots on the frequency. The Tower Controller seemed workload saturated but was not to the point of instructing arrivals to remain outside the airspace. With this amount of traffic; my situational awareness was perhaps moderate; and my student's minimal. While we were maneuvering north of the airport; I heard another pilot request a practice approach for Runway 17L. The practice approach was approved by the Tower with the instruction to remain east of the Runway 17L. At around 5 miles north of the airport; the Tower asked our position; which I reported as close to 4 miles inbound. Within 30 seconds later; I saw the practice approach aircraft flying head-on opposite of straight-in to the Runway; approximately 100 feet below us in the path of our descent. I made an immediate steep turn to the right and informed the Tower of the deviation. Based on only brief visual contact with the conflicting aircraft; I estimated our horizontal separation was less than 500 feet. Without a turn; we would have overflown the traffic with negligible separation.Chain of Events- High density traffic. - Lack of radar service. - Inadequate situational awareness. - Lack of coordination. Human Performance Considerations- Tower Controller may have issued unclear instructions that would not result in separation of inbound and outbound traffic. - Tower Controller may have lost awareness of the practice approach aircraft's location. - The practice approach pilot may have been unaware of traffic already on final approach in the opposite direction. - My awareness of that aircraft's location was inadequate. - I could have improved my situational awareness by asking for more information about the practice approach traffic. - My student was operating in a situation beyond his level of experience in avoiding collisions.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1174905
Time
Date	201405
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	GYI.Airport
State Reference	TX
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft High Wing 1 Eng Fixed Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	None
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft Low Wing 1 Eng Retractable Gear
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Function	Instructor
Qualification	Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 90 Flight Crew Total 670 Flight Crew Type 200
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict NMAC
Miss Distance	Horizontal 400 Vertical 100

An instructor pilot with student on a visual approach to gyi runway 17L reported taking evasive action during a near miss from an aircraft on a practice to the same runway but flying opposite direction.