Narrative:

On training flight for commercial applicant, performed simulated engine failure on crosswind leg. Applicant turned back toward the airport and told tower he was, 'turning back, requesting 7R.' tower then told a departing aircraft to make an immediate right turn and asked us if we were declaring an emergency. Student said, 'negative,' and the tower then cleared us to land on 7R. I asked and received a go around clearance and departed straight out eastbound, making a slight dog-leg to the right to assure clearance from possible inbound traffic that was landing on 25L and right. We discovered the opposing traffic upon the simulated emergency only after applicant had turned back toward the field. To avoid this situation, we should have communicated our intentions to the tower prior to the turn back to the field. Other contributing factors included: some lack of awareness of the departing traffic, conversation with tower personnel indicating this training maneuver would be approved (however earlier notice would be appropriate), and that I had performed this training maneuver previously. My inaction to postpone the turn back to the field until clearance had been received is a contributing human factor. Also, clear tower communication indicating a request for a downwind landing would have been appropriate.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT INSTRUCTOR GIVES COMMERCIAL STUDENT AN ENGINE FAILURE ON CROSSWIND LEG AND STUDENT TURNS BACK TO FIELD IN FACE OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC.

Narrative: ON TRNING FLT FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICANT, PERFORMED SIMULATED ENG FAILURE ON XWIND LEG. APPLICANT TURNED BACK TOWARD THE ARPT AND TOLD TWR HE WAS, 'TURNING BACK, REQUESTING 7R.' TWR THEN TOLD A DEPARTING ACFT TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT TURN AND ASKED US IF WE WERE DECLARING AN EMER. STUDENT SAID, 'NEGATIVE,' AND THE TWR THEN CLRED US TO LAND ON 7R. I ASKED AND RECEIVED A GAR CLRNC AND DEPARTED STRAIGHT OUT EBND, MAKING A SLIGHT DOG-LEG TO THE RIGHT TO ASSURE CLRNC FROM POSSIBLE INBND TFC THAT WAS LNDG ON 25L AND R. WE DISCOVERED THE OPPOSING TFC UPON THE SIMULATED EMER ONLY AFTER APPLICANT HAD TURNED BACK TOWARD THE FIELD. TO AVOID THIS SITUATION, WE SHOULD HAVE COMMUNICATED OUR INTENTIONS TO THE TWR PRIOR TO THE TURN BACK TO THE FIELD. OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDED: SOME LACK OF AWARENESS OF THE DEPARTING TFC, CONVERSATION WITH TWR PERSONNEL INDICATING THIS TRNING MANEUVER WOULD BE APPROVED (HOWEVER EARLIER NOTICE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE), AND THAT I HAD PERFORMED THIS TRNING MANEUVER PREVIOUSLY. MY INACTION TO POSTPONE THE TURN BACK TO THE FIELD UNTIL CLRNC HAD BEEN RECEIVED IS A CONTRIBUTING HUMAN FACTOR. ALSO, CLR TWR COM INDICATING A REQUEST FOR A DOWNWIND LNDG WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.