Narrative:

Myself and my student were on downwind leg abeam the numbers at fort worth spinks airport (fws), when I announced intentions to simulate an engine failure resulting in a full stop landing. Upon simulating engine failure we both checked for traffic and commenced a short approach upon sighting no traffic. At XA00 local, fws CTAF frequency changed, a NOTAM to which I was unaware. All normal radio procedures were followed within 5 NM of the airport. However, our traffic pattern to runway 35L was flown contrary to typical standard right traffic pattern. Our radio calls were not heard by fws traffic, resulting in the twin engine aircraft going around. Neither I nor my student ever saw the twin engine traffic until we parked on the ramp. A bystander noted the situation which had just occurred and pointed out the traffic we had cut off. The traffic was just turning crosswind leg of the traffic pattern. Based on this, our separation could not have been closer than 1-2 NM. I attempted to speak with the pilot of the aircraft, who was also a full stop, but he taxied to his hangar. I believe this situation could have been avoided by thoroughly checking all NOTAMS -- even for a local flight. I always fly published airport traffic patterns, and teach my students the same, but in this situation I do not believe that flying a nonstandard traffic contributed to the separation of aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT IN TFC PATTERN PROC.

Narrative: MYSELF AND MY STUDENT WERE ON DOWNWIND LEG ABEAM THE NUMBERS AT FORT WORTH SPINKS ARPT (FWS), WHEN I ANNOUNCED INTENTIONS TO SIMULATE AN ENG FAILURE RESULTING IN A FULL STOP LNDG. UPON SIMULATING ENG FAILURE WE BOTH CHKED FOR TFC AND COMMENCED A SHORT APCH UPON SIGHTING NO TFC. AT XA00 LCL, FWS CTAF FREQ CHANGED, A NOTAM TO WHICH I WAS UNAWARE. ALL NORMAL RADIO PROCS WERE FOLLOWED WITHIN 5 NM OF THE ARPT. HOWEVER, OUR TFC PATTERN TO RWY 35L WAS FLOWN CONTRARY TO TYPICAL STANDARD R TFC PATTERN. OUR RADIO CALLS WERE NOT HEARD BY FWS TFC, RESULTING IN THE TWIN ENG ACFT GOING AROUND. NEITHER I NOR MY STUDENT EVER SAW THE TWIN ENG TFC UNTIL WE PARKED ON THE RAMP. A BYSTANDER NOTED THE SIT WHICH HAD JUST OCCURRED AND POINTED OUT THE TFC WE HAD CUT OFF. THE TFC WAS JUST TURNING XWIND LEG OF THE TFC PATTERN. BASED ON THIS, OUR SEPARATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLOSER THAN 1-2 NM. I ATTEMPTED TO SPEAK WITH THE PLT OF THE ACFT, WHO WAS ALSO A FULL STOP, BUT HE TAXIED TO HIS HANGAR. I BELIEVE THIS SIT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY THOROUGHLY CHKING ALL NOTAMS -- EVEN FOR A LCL FLT. I ALWAYS FLY PUBLISHED ARPT TFC PATTERNS, AND TEACH MY STUDENTS THE SAME, BUT IN THIS SIT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT FLYING A NONSTANDARD TFC CONTRIBUTED TO THE SEPARATION OF ACFT.

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.