Narrative:

I, the instructor, was teaching simulated engine failures over an airstrip called flying-X (a glider airport). The training took place in a cessna 152. We were approximately 3000 ft MSL (2500 ft AGL) above the grass strip. The student began to set up for a left downwind entry for the airport as the student turned final he realized that he was much too high to make the runway. At an altitude of approximately 500 ft AGL the only option for the student was to attempt a 180 degree turn back to the opposing runway -- which I usually allow -- but don't recommend unless at least 500 ft AGL is available. The student successfully maneuvered the aircraft back to the other runway where a landing could be made, however, an actual touchdown was not accomplished. When we returned to our point of origination I received a call from the airport owner stating that he was to report us for making unsafe maneuvers over his airport. I, the instructor, did not find the maneuvers unsafe, and would have saved the student! Life -- should an actual emergency occurred. Looking back at the situation, however, I feel that it may have been a better decision on my part to have rejected the entire approaching and repeated it in such a manner which would not allow the entire approach and repeated it in such a manner which would not allow a high approach. I just want it to be understood that my main concern is aviation safety and this act was by no means a deliberate action to jeopardize the safety of the flight.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ARPT MGR COMPLAINED TO INSTRUCTOR ABOUT PRACTICE OF FORCE LNDGS AT THIS ARPT CAUSING AN UNSAFE TFC PATTERN CONDITION.

Narrative: I, THE INSTRUCTOR, WAS TEACHING SIMULATED ENG FAILURES OVER AN AIRSTRIP CALLED FLYING-X (A GLIDER ARPT). THE TRAINING TOOK PLACE IN A CESSNA 152. WE WERE APPROX 3000 FT MSL (2500 FT AGL) ABOVE THE GRASS STRIP. THE STUDENT BEGAN TO SET UP FOR A L DOWNWIND ENTRY FOR THE ARPT AS THE STUDENT TURNED FINAL HE REALIZED THAT HE WAS MUCH TOO HIGH TO MAKE THE RWY. AT AN ALT OF APPROX 500 FT AGL THE ONLY OPTION FOR THE STUDENT WAS TO ATTEMPT A 180 DEG TURN BACK TO THE OPPOSING RWY -- WHICH I USUALLY ALLOW -- BUT DON'T RECOMMEND UNLESS AT LEAST 500 FT AGL IS AVAILABLE. THE STUDENT SUCCESSFULLY MANEUVERED THE ACFT BACK TO THE OTHER RWY WHERE A LNDG COULD BE MADE, HOWEVER, AN ACTUAL TOUCHDOWN WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED. WHEN WE RETURNED TO OUR POINT OF ORIGINATION I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE ARPT OWNER STATING THAT HE WAS TO RPT US FOR MAKING UNSAFE MANEUVERS OVER HIS ARPT. I, THE INSTRUCTOR, DID NOT FIND THE MANEUVERS UNSAFE, AND WOULD HAVE SAVED THE STUDENT! LIFE -- SHOULD AN ACTUAL EMER OCCURRED. LOOKING BACK AT THE SIT, HOWEVER, I FEEL THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN A BETTER DECISION ON MY PART TO HAVE REJECTED THE ENTIRE APCHING AND REPEATED IT IN SUCH A MANNER WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW THE ENTIRE APCH AND REPEATED IT IN SUCH A MANNER WHICH WOULD NOT ALLOW A HIGH APCH. I JUST WANT IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT MY MAIN CONCERN IS AVIATION SAFETY AND THIS ACT WAS BY NO MEANS A DELIBERATE ACTION TO JEOPARDIZE THE SAFETY OF THE FLT.

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.