Narrative:

Me and my student were practicing short field landings and takeoffs on gfk's runway 17L talking to the split tower 120.55 frequency. Tower cleared us for the option in the following stop and go. As we touched down and came to a stop; it came to my attention that an aircraft was on short final for runway 17L behind us. Tower reiterated to us that we were 'cleared for takeoff' in what I believe was an attempt to expedite us in starting the takeoff roll.as we began our takeoff roll; the tower controller instructed the aircraft behind us to go around. I do not recall whether or not the controller specified 'go-around left side' or 'go-around right side' (meaning sidestep) to this aircraft; as is standard procedure in grand forks following an ATC directed go-around. During the initial climbout; I diverted my attention momentarily to tell my student that he was clear of the 50 feet obstacle and to correct for wind-drift more accurately as there was an aircraft going around (who would be sidestepping to avoid us). At this point we received a traffic advisory; and noticed on the traffic display that traffic was directly above us +100 feet. Immediately realizing what happened; I took flight controls and descended the aircraft while informing ATC of the traffic conflict. ATC did not respond to my report. I therefore determined that the combination of threats in the pattern (traffic volume; ATC's situational awareness; increasing wind speeds; and emotional shock from the close call) were too great to safely continue the lesson and we subsequently executed a full stop landing.in 20/20 hindsight; I should have decided to stop teaching when I recognized that an aircraft would be going around directly behind us and monitor the situation with my complete attention. This would involve planning to level off at less than pattern altitude until I could visually verify that the traffic was clear of us. Also concerning to me was the situational awareness of the other two parties involved: ATC; and the PIC of the other aircraft. Either of them had the opportunity to see that executing a go-around while tracking runway centerline would result in an imminent risk of collision; and should have: a). In the case of ATC; given instructions/advisories to either conflicting aircraft to resolve the situation. B). In the case of the other aircraft; upon hearing the takeoff clearance of an aircraft on the same runway you are going around on laterally offset the airplane to provide some separation and to aid in visual acquisition; and query ATC on the plan to maintain separation with the aircraft below.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Small aircraft flight instructor reported ATC instructed traffic to go-around while they were on the runway with the option.

Narrative: Me and my student were practicing short field landings and takeoffs on GFK's Runway 17L talking to the split Tower 120.55 frequency. Tower cleared us for the option in the following stop and go. As we touched down and came to a stop; it came to my attention that an aircraft was on short final for Runway 17L behind us. Tower reiterated to us that we were 'cleared for takeoff' in what I believe was an attempt to expedite us in starting the takeoff roll.As we began our takeoff roll; the Tower Controller instructed the aircraft behind us to go around. I do not recall whether or not the controller specified 'go-around left side' or 'go-around right side' (meaning sidestep) to this aircraft; as is standard procedure in Grand Forks following an ATC directed go-around. During the initial climbout; I diverted my attention momentarily to tell my student that he was clear of the 50 feet obstacle and to correct for wind-drift more accurately as there was an aircraft going around (who would be sidestepping to avoid us). At this point we received a traffic advisory; and noticed on the traffic display that traffic was directly above us +100 feet. Immediately realizing what happened; I took flight controls and descended the aircraft while informing ATC of the traffic conflict. ATC did not respond to my report. I therefore determined that the combination of threats in the pattern (traffic volume; ATC's situational awareness; increasing wind speeds; and emotional shock from the close call) were too great to safely continue the lesson and we subsequently executed a full stop landing.In 20/20 hindsight; I should have decided to stop teaching when I recognized that an aircraft would be going around directly behind us and monitor the situation with my complete attention. This would involve planning to level off at less than pattern altitude until I could visually verify that the traffic was clear of us. Also concerning to me was the situational awareness of the other two parties involved: ATC; and the PIC of the other aircraft. Either of them had the opportunity to see that executing a go-around while tracking runway centerline would result in an imminent risk of collision; and should have: a). In the case of ATC; given instructions/advisories to either conflicting aircraft to resolve the situation. b). In the case of the other aircraft; upon hearing the takeoff clearance of an aircraft on the same runway you are going around on laterally offset the airplane to provide some separation and to aid in visual acquisition; and query ATC on the plan to maintain separation with the aircraft below.

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.