Narrative:

During my second flight in the piper seneca PA34-200 I was receiving dual instruction. Following maneuvers in the local training area I called approach control (savannah) and stated that we would like to return for touch and goes. My instructor and I had difficulty seeing the airport and we were given vectors to final. The tower first told us to land (runway 9) and hold short of runway 36. We saw the airport at 4.5 mi and flew the visual approach. The tower canceled our hold short of runway 36 and advised us that the full length was available. We landed and did a touch and go. The tower controller advised us if we wanted to do a touch and go we should have advised them. We were apparently told to enter left traffic. My instructor questioned me when we turned into right traffic, but I assured him we were advised right traffic. The tower corrected us but told us to continue. My lack of experience in this type of aircraft, our concern with the reduced visibility, and my reliance on our intentions being relayed to the tower from approach control contributed to the violation. While learning to fly a new type of aircraft the instructor should have the task of talking to approach and tower and reduce the workload on the student.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA34 TRAINEE, WITH INSTRUCTOR, FAILED TO ADHERE TO TWR TFC PATTERN INSTRUCTIONS AFTER MAKING A TOUCH AND GO INSTEAD OF FULL STOP LNDG, AS EXPECTED. TRAINEE WANTED INSTRUCTOR TO COMPLETE ALL COM WITH ATC. COCKPIT COORD APPARENTLY INCOMPLETE.

Narrative: DURING MY SECOND FLT IN THE PIPER SENECA PA34-200 I WAS RECEIVING DUAL INSTRUCTION. FOLLOWING MANEUVERS IN THE LCL TRAINING AREA I CALLED APCH CTL (SAVANNAH) AND STATED THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO RETURN FOR TOUCH AND GOES. MY INSTRUCTOR AND I HAD DIFFICULTY SEEING THE ARPT AND WE WERE GIVEN VECTORS TO FINAL. THE TWR FIRST TOLD US TO LAND (RWY 9) AND HOLD SHORT OF RWY 36. WE SAW THE ARPT AT 4.5 MI AND FLEW THE VISUAL APCH. THE TWR CANCELED OUR HOLD SHORT OF RWY 36 AND ADVISED US THAT THE FULL LENGTH WAS AVAILABLE. WE LANDED AND DID A TOUCH AND GO. THE TWR CTLR ADVISED US IF WE WANTED TO DO A TOUCH AND GO WE SHOULD HAVE ADVISED THEM. WE WERE APPARENTLY TOLD TO ENTER L TFC. MY INSTRUCTOR QUESTIONED ME WHEN WE TURNED INTO R TFC, BUT I ASSURED HIM WE WERE ADVISED R TFC. THE TWR CORRECTED US BUT TOLD US TO CONTINUE. MY LACK OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS TYPE OF ACFT, OUR CONCERN WITH THE REDUCED VISIBILITY, AND MY RELIANCE ON OUR INTENTIONS BEING RELAYED TO THE TWR FROM APCH CTL CONTRIBUTED TO THE VIOLATION. WHILE LEARNING TO FLY A NEW TYPE OF ACFT THE INSTRUCTOR SHOULD HAVE THE TASK OF TALKING TO APCH AND TWR AND REDUCE THE WORKLOAD ON THE STUDENT.

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.