Narrative:

Mlt X was on practice ILS runway 13 approach, and had been cleared for the option with missed approach instructions heading 220. Small aircraft Y was departing runway 17, with a request for touch-and-go on runway 17 (see diagram below). Local controller (local control), seeing that wake turbulence separation of 2 mins would not exist if small aircraft Y was allowed to enter downwind for runway 17, asked pilot of small aircraft Y if he could enter left base to runway 22 and make a short approach. The pilot concurred, and was instructed to 'enter left base, runway 22, make short approach, cleared for touch-and-go, traffic a heavy widebody transport on 3 mi final to runway 13.' mlt X was issued traffic on small aircraft Y and both aircraft acknowledged traffic. After a few moments, local controller determined that small aircraft Y would not be through the intersection of runway 13 and 22 prior to mlt X crossing the runway 13 threshold. Since small aircraft Y was already turning close-in final to runway 22, local controller told force 03 to 'execute missed approach over the approach lights runway 13, do not overfly runway 22.' the pilot of mlt X said that he was expecting a touch-and-go, and was told by local controller 2 more times unable and to execute the missed approach over the lights. The pilot of force 03 disregarded the controller's instructions and made a low approach over runway 13, full length (10000 ft). Small aircraft Y was told to 'make this a stop-and-go, heavy widebody transport overflying the runway.' small aircraft Y stopped approximately 500 ft from runway 13. After a few moments, an audibly shaken voice from small aircraft Y asked to taxi to parking. There is absolutely no excuse for the pilot of mlt X to disregard ATC instructions. Since go around instructions were not given, this technically becomes a runway incursion. If the pilot of mlt X was unable to abide by ATC instructions, he is obligated to advise ATC of the fact. This situation could have turned into a much worse situation had not local controller been vigilant to the fact that mlt X had no intentions of abiding by ATC instructions. (In closing, it is standard practice at GGG to advise aircraft to execute missed approach at a given point in the pattern, whether at the approach end or the departure end of a runway to accommodate itinerant traffic and pattern (tower) traffic.)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLT X NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC FAILED TO EXECUTE MISSED APCH AS INSTRUCTED. PLTDEV.

Narrative: MLT X WAS ON PRACTICE ILS RWY 13 APCH, AND HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE OPTION WITH MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS HDG 220. SMA Y WAS DEPARTING RWY 17, WITH A REQUEST FOR TOUCH-AND-GO ON RWY 17 (SEE DIAGRAM BELOW). LCL CTLR (LC), SEEING THAT WAKE TURB SEPARATION OF 2 MINS WOULD NOT EXIST IF SMA Y WAS ALLOWED TO ENTER DOWNWIND FOR RWY 17, ASKED PLT OF SMA Y IF HE COULD ENTER L BASE TO RWY 22 AND MAKE A SHORT APCH. THE PLT CONCURRED, AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO 'ENTER L BASE, RWY 22, MAKE SHORT APCH, CLRED FOR TOUCH-AND-GO, TFC A HVY WDB ON 3 MI FINAL TO RWY 13.' MLT X WAS ISSUED TFC ON SMA Y AND BOTH ACFT ACKNOWLEDGED TFC. AFTER A FEW MOMENTS, LCL CTLR DETERMINED THAT SMA Y WOULD NOT BE THROUGH THE INTXN OF RWY 13 AND 22 PRIOR TO MLT X XING THE RWY 13 THRESHOLD. SINCE SMA Y WAS ALREADY TURNING CLOSE-IN FINAL TO RWY 22, LCL CTLR TOLD FORCE 03 TO 'EXECUTE MISSED APCH OVER THE APCH LIGHTS RWY 13, DO NOT OVERFLY RWY 22.' THE PLT OF MLT X SAID THAT HE WAS EXPECTING A TOUCH-AND-GO, AND WAS TOLD BY LCL CTLR 2 MORE TIMES UNABLE AND TO EXECUTE THE MISSED APCH OVER THE LIGHTS. THE PLT OF FORCE 03 DISREGARDED THE CTLR'S INSTRUCTIONS AND MADE A LOW APCH OVER RWY 13, FULL LENGTH (10000 FT). SMA Y WAS TOLD TO 'MAKE THIS A STOP-AND-GO, HVY WDB OVERFLYING THE RWY.' SMA Y STOPPED APPROX 500 FT FROM RWY 13. AFTER A FEW MOMENTS, AN AUDIBLY SHAKEN VOICE FROM SMA Y ASKED TO TAXI TO PARKING. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR THE PLT OF MLT X TO DISREGARD ATC INSTRUCTIONS. SINCE GAR INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT GIVEN, THIS TECHNICALLY BECOMES A RWY INCURSION. IF THE PLT OF MLT X WAS UNABLE TO ABIDE BY ATC INSTRUCTIONS, HE IS OBLIGATED TO ADVISE ATC OF THE FACT. THIS SITUATION COULD HAVE TURNED INTO A MUCH WORSE SITUATION HAD NOT LCL CTLR BEEN VIGILANT TO THE FACT THAT MLT X HAD NO INTENTIONS OF ABIDING BY ATC INSTRUCTIONS. (IN CLOSING, IT IS STANDARD PRACTICE AT GGG TO ADVISE ACFT TO EXECUTE MISSED APCH AT A GIVEN POINT IN THE PATTERN, WHETHER AT THE APCH END OR THE DEP END OF A RWY TO ACCOMMODATE ITINERANT TFC AND PATTERN (TWR) TFC.)

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.