Narrative:

The planned lesson was a long cross country for the instrument rating. The WX at departure airport and en route was foggy with obscured sky, VV100 ft, with the WX clearing by takeoff time to marginal VMC conditions. Just before takeoff an updated WX briefing gave a forecast of 500 ft broken 2 mi visibility at dayton at our ETA. I was thrilled with the fact that the student would get to experience at least 1 approach, an ILS, to above minimums on this trip. The first airport we made an approach into was almost cavu when we arrived for the approach. En route, on the second leg to dayton, ATIS showed that the WX never really cleared and was hovering at minimums. Some of the 'big boys' even suggested that they go to CAT ii approach, as WX was borderline for ILS. Still thinking the experience would be good for the student, I planned to continue with the approach, miss and continue to our alternate, which had VMC conditions. Simultaneous ILS was in effect on parallel runways, so I emphasized the importance on the approach of not drifting to the right of localizer. On the ILS approach, we were asked to keep our speed up for following traffic. We entered the clouds about 600 ft above decision ht. The student did a fairly good job on staying on the localizer and stayed slightly above glide path as I suggested seeing we were following an air carrier on the approach. As we got near decision ht, the student went right of the localizer. I told him to correct, but since we were close to decision ht, I was also focusing on altitude and looking for runway environment. At decision ht, the ground started to appear, but not runway environment, so I called for miss. The student, was busy watching for runway, and called runway in sight on our left. I told him to fly the miss, runway heading. Seeing the student was allowing the aircraft to turn right and didn't seem to be noticing it or making a correction, I got on the controls. By the time I stopped the turn and started turning to the runway heading, we were questioned as to our heading, which the student reported as 270 degrees, 30 degrees from runway heading. We were then given a vector for our miss. At the student's request, we tried one more ILS. The next approach resulted in spotting runway at minimums and landing. Taxiing to the FBO, ground controller 'busted our chops' about our maneuver on the miss. Knowing that the approach was likely to end in a miss, I should have emphasized the missed procedure more with the student before the approach, instead of calling it out while executing the miss. Also, I should have been 'on the controls' more, knowing it was the student's first time to minimums and not knowing how he'd handle the situation for real. (He was watching the 'view' outside the aircraft after decision ht instead of flying the aircraft.)

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 CFI ALLOWS HIS PVT INST CANDIDATE PLT TO FLY OFF RWY HEADING DURING A MISSED APCH AT DAY, OH.

Narrative: THE PLANNED LESSON WAS A LONG XCOUNTRY FOR THE INST RATING. THE WX AT DEP ARPT AND ENRTE WAS FOGGY WITH OBSCURED SKY, VV100 FT, WITH THE WX CLRING BY TKOF TIME TO MARGINAL VMC CONDITIONS. JUST BEFORE TKOF AN UPDATED WX BRIEFING GAVE A FORECAST OF 500 FT BROKEN 2 MI VISIBILITY AT DAYTON AT OUR ETA. I WAS THRILLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE STUDENT WOULD GET TO EXPERIENCE AT LEAST 1 APCH, AN ILS, TO ABOVE MINIMUMS ON THIS TRIP. THE FIRST ARPT WE MADE AN APCH INTO WAS ALMOST CAVU WHEN WE ARRIVED FOR THE APCH. ENRTE, ON THE SECOND LEG TO DAYTON, ATIS SHOWED THAT THE WX NEVER REALLY CLRED AND WAS HOVERING AT MINIMUMS. SOME OF THE 'BIG BOYS' EVEN SUGGESTED THAT THEY GO TO CAT II APCH, AS WX WAS BORDERLINE FOR ILS. STILL THINKING THE EXPERIENCE WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE STUDENT, I PLANNED TO CONTINUE WITH THE APCH, MISS AND CONTINUE TO OUR ALTERNATE, WHICH HAD VMC CONDITIONS. SIMULTANEOUS ILS WAS IN EFFECT ON PARALLEL RWYS, SO I EMPHASIZED THE IMPORTANCE ON THE APCH OF NOT DRIFTING TO THE R OF LOC. ON THE ILS APCH, WE WERE ASKED TO KEEP OUR SPD UP FOR FOLLOWING TFC. WE ENTERED THE CLOUDS ABOUT 600 FT ABOVE DECISION HT. THE STUDENT DID A FAIRLY GOOD JOB ON STAYING ON THE LOC AND STAYED SLIGHTLY ABOVE GLIDE PATH AS I SUGGESTED SEEING WE WERE FOLLOWING AN ACR ON THE APCH. AS WE GOT NEAR DECISION HT, THE STUDENT WENT R OF THE LOC. I TOLD HIM TO CORRECT, BUT SINCE WE WERE CLOSE TO DECISION HT, I WAS ALSO FOCUSING ON ALT AND LOOKING FOR RWY ENVIRONMENT. AT DECISION HT, THE GND STARTED TO APPEAR, BUT NOT RWY ENVIRONMENT, SO I CALLED FOR MISS. THE STUDENT, WAS BUSY WATCHING FOR RWY, AND CALLED RWY IN SIGHT ON OUR L. I TOLD HIM TO FLY THE MISS, RWY HEADING. SEEING THE STUDENT WAS ALLOWING THE ACFT TO TURN R AND DIDN'T SEEM TO BE NOTICING IT OR MAKING A CORRECTION, I GOT ON THE CTLS. BY THE TIME I STOPPED THE TURN AND STARTED TURNING TO THE RWY HEADING, WE WERE QUESTIONED AS TO OUR HEADING, WHICH THE STUDENT RPTED AS 270 DEGS, 30 DEGS FROM RWY HEADING. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A VECTOR FOR OUR MISS. AT THE STUDENT'S REQUEST, WE TRIED ONE MORE ILS. THE NEXT APCH RESULTED IN SPOTTING RWY AT MINIMUMS AND LNDG. TAXIING TO THE FBO, GND CTLR 'BUSTED OUR CHOPS' ABOUT OUR MANEUVER ON THE MISS. KNOWING THAT THE APCH WAS LIKELY TO END IN A MISS, I SHOULD HAVE EMPHASIZED THE MISSED PROC MORE WITH THE STUDENT BEFORE THE APCH, INSTEAD OF CALLING IT OUT WHILE EXECUTING THE MISS. ALSO, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN 'ON THE CTLS' MORE, KNOWING IT WAS THE STUDENT'S FIRST TIME TO MINIMUMS AND NOT KNOWING HOW HE'D HANDLE THE SIT FOR REAL. (HE WAS WATCHING THE 'VIEW' OUTSIDE THE ACFT AFTER DECISION HT INSTEAD OF FLYING THE 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.