General aviation flight instructor reported a go-around maneuver from an instrument approach at a no...

Attributes
ACN	1492674
Time
Date	201710
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Landing
Person 1
Function	Instructor Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Flight Instructor Flight Crew Instrument Flight Crew Multiengine
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 25 Flight Crew Total 9000 Flight Crew Type 1500
Events
Anomaly	Conflict Ground Conflict Critical Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Miss Distance	Horizontal 300 Vertical 500

Narrative:

On an instructional flight practicing ILS approaches; the instructor and flight student (commercial pilot) were engaged in managing and learning autopilot technology. At various times; both the PF (pilot flying) and the instructor were managing the radios; monitoring the AWOS and the CTAF. The PF was wearing a view-limiting device. The instructor was briefing the PF on the procedure for turning off the autopilot and landing from simulated minimums on the approach.the instructional flight was landing straight in from the ILS approach. It heard no calls on the CTAF frequency from the previously landing jet; which had apparently landed [opposite] runway. The instructional flight made at least one call inside the FAF on the ILS.when the instructor looked up at the runway; he noticed a citation rolling out on the opposite runway. Evasive action in the form of a go around was initiated; but the time lag between the instructor's call for a go around and the pilot's performance of the go-around caused a less-than-normal separation as the landing aircraft passed overhead and offset from the citation exiting the runway.the situation was made more likely by taxiway work that influenced the choice of landing and departing runway; by joint operation of the landing aircraft radios; which may have resulted in a failure to hear CTAF radio calls; and by concentration on instruction. The go-around was successful and maintained safe VFR separation from the two aircraft; but the go around should have been initiated earlier and better radio communication would have avoided a conflict on opposing runways.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: General aviation flight instructor reported a go-around maneuver from an instrument approach at a non-towered airport due to opposite direction landing traffic.

Narrative: On an instructional flight practicing ILS approaches; the instructor and flight student (commercial pilot) were engaged in managing and learning autopilot technology. At various times; both the PF (Pilot Flying) and the instructor were managing the radios; monitoring the AWOS and the CTAF. The PF was wearing a view-limiting device. The instructor was briefing the PF on the procedure for turning off the autopilot and landing from simulated minimums on the approach.The instructional flight was landing straight in from the ILS approach. It heard no calls on the CTAF frequency from the previously landing jet; which had apparently landed [opposite] runway. The instructional flight made at least one call inside the FAF on the ILS.When the instructor looked up at the runway; he noticed a Citation rolling out on the opposite runway. Evasive action in the form of a go around was initiated; but the time lag between the instructor's call for a go around and the pilot's performance of the go-around caused a less-than-normal separation as the landing aircraft passed overhead and offset from the Citation exiting the runway.The situation was made more likely by taxiway work that influenced the choice of landing and departing runway; by joint operation of the landing aircraft radios; which may have resulted in a failure to hear CTAF radio calls; and by concentration on instruction. The go-around was successful and maintained safe VFR separation from the two aircraft; but the go around should have been initiated earlier and better radio communication would have avoided a conflict on opposing runways.

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.