Piper PA23 instructor, with instrument trainee, overflew a closed runway during a missed approach to...

Attributes
ACN	520944
Time
Date	200108
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	navaid : osh.vortac
State Reference	WI
Altitude	msl single value : 1360
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : osh.tower tower : mia.tower
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Piper Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 150 flight time total : 14500 flight time type : 100
ASRS Report	520944
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : trainee
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : published procedure other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Airport Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

We were on an instrument training flight and cleared for the practice VOR runway 9 approach. The student shot the approach and executed a missed approach at the missed approach point which was the osh VOR located about midfield. The tower then asked us if we were on approach for runway 18, we replied 'negative' we are in a left turn northbound as previously requested and cleared after the VOR runway 9 approach. The tower then asked if we had overflown runway 9 since it was closed. I replied 'affirmative' we flew the VOR runway 9 approach as previously cleared to the missed approach point which entails flying over about 1/2 of runway 9. The tower responded that they normally don't allow overflying a closed runway. I did not debate the situation further since the controller was busy at a VFR airport with limited visibility. I know that flying an approach to a closed runway is fine, but I am not sure what the tower was coming from in his questioning our overflying of the runway. I feel that if the tower did not want us flying the entire approach he should have made that clear when he cleared us for the approach.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PIPER PA23 INSTRUCTOR, WITH INST TRAINEE, OVERFLEW A CLOSED RWY DURING A MISSED APCH TO THE CLOSED RWY CONTRARY TO ATC PUBLISHED PROCS.

Narrative: WE WERE ON AN INST TRAINING FLT AND CLRED FOR THE PRACTICE VOR RWY 9 APCH. THE STUDENT SHOT THE APCH AND EXECUTED A MISSED APCH AT THE MISSED APCH POINT WHICH WAS THE OSH VOR LOCATED ABOUT MIDFIELD. THE TWR THEN ASKED US IF WE WERE ON APCH FOR RWY 18, WE REPLIED 'NEGATIVE' WE ARE IN A L TURN NBOUND AS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED AND CLRED AFTER THE VOR RWY 9 APCH. THE TWR THEN ASKED IF WE HAD OVERFLOWN RWY 9 SINCE IT WAS CLOSED. I REPLIED 'AFFIRMATIVE' WE FLEW THE VOR RWY 9 APCH AS PREVIOUSLY CLRED TO THE MISSED APCH POINT WHICH ENTAILS FLYING OVER ABOUT 1/2 OF RWY 9. THE TWR RESPONDED THAT THEY NORMALLY DON'T ALLOW OVERFLYING A CLOSED RWY. I DID NOT DEBATE THE SIT FURTHER SINCE THE CTLR WAS BUSY AT A VFR ARPT WITH LIMITED VISIBILITY. I KNOW THAT FLYING AN APCH TO A CLOSED RWY IS FINE, BUT I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE TWR WAS COMING FROM IN HIS QUESTIONING OUR OVERFLYING OF THE RWY. I FEEL THAT IF THE TWR DID NOT WANT US FLYING THE ENTIRE APCH HE SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT CLR WHEN HE CLRED US FOR THE APCH.

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.

Piper PA23 instructor, with instrument trainee, overflew a closed runway during a missed approach to the closed runway contrary to ATC published procedures.