Narrative:

I planned for full stops because in our school's flight information file, there is a note prohibiting low approachs at orl. It allows only touch and goes or full stops. Apparently this restr is imposed by the management of orl or the tower at orl. Also in our school's operations manual, touch and goes are prohibited in the mooney. The takeoff and cruise were uneventful. We had checked in with orlando approach and requested a localizer back course runway 25 approach. The controller acknowledged and began vectoring us for the approach. As frequency time permitted, I explained the sequence of events I was planning. (Approach IFR, full stop, approach VFR, full stop, IFR departure to dab.) he responded with 'oh, so you want 2 approachs?' I answered in the affirmative, and he said something like 'you can do the low approach if you want it.' I accepted the offer and he issued us missed approach instructions. There was a stiff wind from the southwest (forecast was for about 220 degrees at 20 KTS). About 10 mi from the orl VOR (6 mi outside the final approach fix), the controller issued 'fly heading 230 degrees, maintain 2000 ft till established on the final approach course, cleared for localizer back course runway 25 approach.' we were not yet established (at least 10 degrees off course since the localizer needle was still hard up against the left peg), and the needle was showing no sign of coming alive. I was about to prompt the student to take a bigger intercept when approach handed us off to the tower. We switched to tower and the tower controller prompted the student for me. He asked: 'are you on course yet?' my student responded by telling him that we were not, but were flying a heading given us by approach. The tower told us to go back to approach and ask for a new heading. By this time we are around 2 mi from the FAF. I was inclined to just pick a heading and prompt the student to fly it until we intercepted, but the tower controller seemed to believe this action required approval from approach. In all my previous training, I have been taught that when you are cleared for an approach, you have been given license to fly whatever heading is required to intercept and track whatever NAVAID is being used to define the final approach course. So, I went along with the frequency change and allowed the student to go back to approach. When we went back to approach, I could tell he thought we were on the missed approach since he issued us a vector to the northwest. I clarified that we were still on the approach and had been instructed to re-contact him for a new vector. He issued a new heading, then handed us off to tower for the second time. By now we were very close to the FAF. We finally got established on the final approach course. The tower apparently cleared us for a touch and go, and the student read it back. I was concentrating on what the needle and the student were doing, and I guess I didn't consciously register what the tower had said, but was expecting clearance for a low approach or the option since approach had offered it to us. We flew to the missed approach point and executed the go around and began to follow the instructions which had been issued to us by approach. The tower then inquired if we had a problem, and I said no problem, just executing the missed. He chastised us at length on the air, then handed us back off to approach. About this time, we flew over the MM for the ILS to the opposite runway. My student began punching buttons on the audio panel to silence the marker. I was overwhelmed at this point. I didn't notice that the student had punched off all the buttons patching the communication radios to the headset or the speaker. As we flew the heading issued in our missed approach instructions, we got about 8 mi northwest of the airport and I noticed I hadn't heard anything. So I selected the opposite communication transmitter and tried to call approach again. No luck, so I tried the tower. Still no luck. Then I checked the audio panel, and found the problem. When I then called approach, he as very cool about it and just said 'oh, there you are' and gave us vectors for the second approach. The second approach, landing, and return to dab were uneventful. So, I made 2 big mistakes: 1) failed to comply with the clearance I was issued without obtaining anamended clearance. 2) flew in class B airspace without maintaining 2 way radio contact. I relearned the following lessons: if an approach is not stabilized at least 2 mi from the FAF, request to get re-vectored. Don't try to salvage a bad situation. By researching the aim, I believe my initial instinct is correct. The frequency change back to approach was unnecessary and contributed to the confusion and missed clearance from the tower. I have to demand more from my student, especially a cfii candidate. He should have known that touch and goes are prohibited in the type aircraft we were in and either refused the touch and go clearance which he read back, or clarified it with me. I didn't uncover this weakness in his knowledge, or else I have slipped into the habit of making operational decisions for him instead of forcing him to take more of an instructor's role in the cockpit. This could be prevented by better coordination between approach and the tower. If the tower intends to prohibit low approachs, then approach shouldn't offer it. There may be somewhat of a 'turf' battle going on because in the tower's admonishment after our missed approach, he said 'it's not approach's airport, he can't make that decision' etc.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: M20J ACFT ON CFII TRAINING FLT WAS CLRED FOR TOUCH AND GO LNDG, BUT RPTR'S FLT SCHOOL PROHIBITED TOUCH AND GO LNDGS IN THAT ACFT. RPTR INSTRUCTOR DIDN'T HEAR TWR INSTRUCTIONS NOR TRAINEE READBACK OF CLRNC FOR TOUCH AND GO SO WHEN THEY DID A LOW APCH AND GAR, TWR CHASTISED THEM.

Narrative: I PLANNED FOR FULL STOPS BECAUSE IN OUR SCHOOL'S FLT INFO FILE, THERE IS A NOTE PROHIBITING LOW APCHS AT ORL. IT ALLOWS ONLY TOUCH AND GOES OR FULL STOPS. APPARENTLY THIS RESTR IS IMPOSED BY THE MGMNT OF ORL OR THE TWR AT ORL. ALSO IN OUR SCHOOL'S OPS MANUAL, TOUCH AND GOES ARE PROHIBITED IN THE MOONEY. THE TKOF AND CRUISE WERE UNEVENTFUL. WE HAD CHKED IN WITH ORLANDO APCH AND REQUESTED A LOC BACK COURSE RWY 25 APCH. THE CTLR ACKNOWLEDGED AND BEGAN VECTORING US FOR THE APCH. AS FREQ TIME PERMITTED, I EXPLAINED THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS I WAS PLANNING. (APCH IFR, FULL STOP, APCH VFR, FULL STOP, IFR DEP TO DAB.) HE RESPONDED WITH 'OH, SO YOU WANT 2 APCHS?' I ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND HE SAID SOMETHING LIKE 'YOU CAN DO THE LOW APCH IF YOU WANT IT.' I ACCEPTED THE OFFER AND HE ISSUED US MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS. THERE WAS A STIFF WIND FROM THE SW (FORECAST WAS FOR ABOUT 220 DEGS AT 20 KTS). ABOUT 10 MI FROM THE ORL VOR (6 MI OUTSIDE THE FINAL APCH FIX), THE CTLR ISSUED 'FLY HDG 230 DEGS, MAINTAIN 2000 FT TILL ESTABLISHED ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE, CLRED FOR LOC BACK COURSE RWY 25 APCH.' WE WERE NOT YET ESTABLISHED (AT LEAST 10 DEGS OFF COURSE SINCE THE LOC NEEDLE WAS STILL HARD UP AGAINST THE L PEG), AND THE NEEDLE WAS SHOWING NO SIGN OF COMING ALIVE. I WAS ABOUT TO PROMPT THE STUDENT TO TAKE A BIGGER INTERCEPT WHEN APCH HANDED US OFF TO THE TWR. WE SWITCHED TO TWR AND THE TWR CTLR PROMPTED THE STUDENT FOR ME. HE ASKED: 'ARE YOU ON COURSE YET?' MY STUDENT RESPONDED BY TELLING HIM THAT WE WERE NOT, BUT WERE FLYING A HEADING GIVEN US BY APCH. THE TWR TOLD US TO GO BACK TO APCH AND ASK FOR A NEW HEADING. BY THIS TIME WE ARE AROUND 2 MI FROM THE FAF. I WAS INCLINED TO JUST PICK A HEADING AND PROMPT THE STUDENT TO FLY IT UNTIL WE INTERCEPTED, BUT THE TWR CTLR SEEMED TO BELIEVE THIS ACTION REQUIRED APPROVAL FROM APCH. IN ALL MY PREVIOUS TRAINING, I HAVE BEEN TAUGHT THAT WHEN YOU ARE CLRED FOR AN APCH, YOU HAVE BEEN GIVEN LICENSE TO FLY WHATEVER HEADING IS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND TRACK WHATEVER NAVAID IS BEING USED TO DEFINE THE FINAL APCH COURSE. SO, I WENT ALONG WITH THE FREQ CHANGE AND ALLOWED THE STUDENT TO GO BACK TO APCH. WHEN WE WENT BACK TO APCH, I COULD TELL HE THOUGHT WE WERE ON THE MISSED APCH SINCE HE ISSUED US A VECTOR TO THE NW. I CLARIFIED THAT WE WERE STILL ON THE APCH AND HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO RE-CONTACT HIM FOR A NEW VECTOR. HE ISSUED A NEW HEADING, THEN HANDED US OFF TO TWR FOR THE SECOND TIME. BY NOW WE WERE VERY CLOSE TO THE FAF. WE FINALLY GOT ESTABLISHED ON THE FINAL APCH COURSE. THE TWR APPARENTLY CLRED US FOR A TOUCH AND GO, AND THE STUDENT READ IT BACK. I WAS CONCENTRATING ON WHAT THE NEEDLE AND THE STUDENT WERE DOING, AND I GUESS I DIDN'T CONSCIOUSLY REGISTER WHAT THE TWR HAD SAID, BUT WAS EXPECTING CLRNC FOR A LOW APCH OR THE OPTION SINCE APCH HAD OFFERED IT TO US. WE FLEW TO THE MISSED APCH POINT AND EXECUTED THE GAR AND BEGAN TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED TO US BY APCH. THE TWR THEN INQUIRED IF WE HAD A PROB, AND I SAID NO PROB, JUST EXECUTING THE MISSED. HE CHASTISED US AT LENGTH ON THE AIR, THEN HANDED US BACK OFF TO APCH. ABOUT THIS TIME, WE FLEW OVER THE MM FOR THE ILS TO THE OPPOSITE RWY. MY STUDENT BEGAN PUNCHING BUTTONS ON THE AUDIO PANEL TO SILENCE THE MARKER. I WAS OVERWHELMED AT THIS POINT. I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THE STUDENT HAD PUNCHED OFF ALL THE BUTTONS PATCHING THE COM RADIOS TO THE HEADSET OR THE SPEAKER. AS WE FLEW THE HEADING ISSUED IN OUR MISSED APCH INSTRUCTIONS, WE GOT ABOUT 8 MI NW OF THE ARPT AND I NOTICED I HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING. SO I SELECTED THE OPPOSITE COM XMITTER AND TRIED TO CALL APCH AGAIN. NO LUCK, SO I TRIED THE TWR. STILL NO LUCK. THEN I CHKED THE AUDIO PANEL, AND FOUND THE PROB. WHEN I THEN CALLED APCH, HE AS VERY COOL ABOUT IT AND JUST SAID 'OH, THERE YOU ARE' AND GAVE US VECTORS FOR THE SECOND APCH. THE SECOND APCH, LNDG, AND RETURN TO DAB WERE UNEVENTFUL. SO, I MADE 2 BIG MISTAKES: 1) FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CLRNC I WAS ISSUED WITHOUT OBTAINING ANAMENDED CLRNC. 2) FLEW IN CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT MAINTAINING 2 WAY RADIO CONTACT. I RELEARNED THE FOLLOWING LESSONS: IF AN APCH IS NOT STABILIZED AT LEAST 2 MI FROM THE FAF, REQUEST TO GET RE-VECTORED. DON'T TRY TO SALVAGE A BAD SIT. BY RESEARCHING THE AIM, I BELIEVE MY INITIAL INSTINCT IS CORRECT. THE FREQ CHANGE BACK TO APCH WAS UNNECESSARY AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE CONFUSION AND MISSED CLRNC FROM THE TWR. I HAVE TO DEMAND MORE FROM MY STUDENT, ESPECIALLY A CFII CANDIDATE. HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT TOUCH AND GOES ARE PROHIBITED IN THE TYPE ACFT WE WERE IN AND EITHER REFUSED THE TOUCH AND GO CLRNC WHICH HE READ BACK, OR CLARIFIED IT WITH ME. I DIDN'T UNCOVER THIS WEAKNESS IN HIS KNOWLEDGE, OR ELSE I HAVE SLIPPED INTO THE HABIT OF MAKING OPERATIONAL DECISIONS FOR HIM INSTEAD OF FORCING HIM TO TAKE MORE OF AN INSTRUCTOR'S ROLE IN THE COCKPIT. THIS COULD BE PREVENTED BY BETTER COORD BTWN APCH AND THE TWR. IF THE TWR INTENDS TO PROHIBIT LOW APCHS, THEN APCH SHOULDN'T OFFER IT. THERE MAY BE SOMEWHAT OF A 'TURF' BATTLE GOING ON BECAUSE IN THE TWR'S ADMONISHMENT AFTER OUR MISSED APCH, HE SAID 'IT'S NOT APCH'S ARPT, HE CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION' ETC.

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.