Narrative:

I (C130) was cleared for an ILS to runway 13 on an IFR clearance. After being switched over to tower and approximately 500 ft AGL, I was given clearance to turn off of the approach due to a T43 landing opposite direction to runway 31. He was cleared the option. My instructions were to turn left to circle west to runway 31 which is not possible since left was east of the field. An instructor controller or tower supervisor (I'm not sure which) corrected the initial instruction by telling me to turn right circle west of the field. These instructions made sense and were supported by the fact there was another C130 in the pattern to the west for runway 31. I was in a simulated 3-ENG confign with #4 simulated shutdown. My student initiated a go around by banking left 5 degrees while I fed-in the #4 engine and terminated the simulated emergency then turned right. We acknowledged to ATC that we were in the turn and that turn was plotted with radar to be 1.5 mi from the runway. Nothing else was said for about 1 hour until the T43 was departing the pattern for good. The T43 asked the controller about the conflict he had with the C130 and the controller was unaware of the situation the T43 was referring to. After I landed the other pilot (T43) called me to see if I had seen any conflict. His concern was that he was cleared the option and that his flight path might have been a conflict with me. However, I saw no immediate conflict since I was around 500 ft AGL and 1.5 mi from the runway. He claimed he was going to file a hatr against ATC. ATC called me the next day advising me the tapes had been pulled and a hatr filed against them. They also stated that they had given me a third clearance on my go around to fly east of the field. My crew was unaware of that clearance. Our perception is that no immediate conflict existed. However, on the ILS our position to the T43 is beak-to-beak since the ILS course position the aircraft to the 12 O'clock position. Confusing clrncs by multiple controllers may not have helped perceptions, and turning us east of the field would have put us in conflict with traffic on base leg from the west. We felt our course of action to be correct at the time, based on what we heard, as well as the safest due to other traffic in the area.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C130 CAPT LEARNS THAT HE DID NOT FOLLOW GAR INSTRUCTIONS RESULTING IN A CONFLICT WITH A T43 MAKING AN APCH TO THE OPPOSITE END OF THE RWY WITH THE OPTION TO MAKE A MISSED APCH.

Narrative: I (C130) WAS CLRED FOR AN ILS TO RWY 13 ON AN IFR CLRNC. AFTER BEING SWITCHED OVER TO TWR AND APPROX 500 FT AGL, I WAS GIVEN CLRNC TO TURN OFF OF THE APCH DUE TO A T43 LNDG OPPOSITE DIRECTION TO RWY 31. HE WAS CLRED THE OPTION. MY INSTRUCTIONS WERE TO TURN L TO CIRCLE W TO RWY 31 WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE SINCE L WAS E OF THE FIELD. AN INSTRUCTOR CTLR OR TWR SUPVR (I'M NOT SURE WHICH) CORRECTED THE INITIAL INSTRUCTION BY TELLING ME TO TURN R CIRCLE W OF THE FIELD. THESE INSTRUCTIONS MADE SENSE AND WERE SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THERE WAS ANOTHER C130 IN THE PATTERN TO THE W FOR RWY 31. I WAS IN A SIMULATED 3-ENG CONFIGN WITH #4 SIMULATED SHUTDOWN. MY STUDENT INITIATED A GAR BY BANKING L 5 DEGS WHILE I FED-IN THE #4 ENG AND TERMINATED THE SIMULATED EMER THEN TURNED R. WE ACKNOWLEDGED TO ATC THAT WE WERE IN THE TURN AND THAT TURN WAS PLOTTED WITH RADAR TO BE 1.5 MI FROM THE RWY. NOTHING ELSE WAS SAID FOR ABOUT 1 HR UNTIL THE T43 WAS DEPARTING THE PATTERN FOR GOOD. THE T43 ASKED THE CTLR ABOUT THE CONFLICT HE HAD WITH THE C130 AND THE CTLR WAS UNAWARE OF THE SIT THE T43 WAS REFERRING TO. AFTER I LANDED THE OTHER PLT (T43) CALLED ME TO SEE IF I HAD SEEN ANY CONFLICT. HIS CONCERN WAS THAT HE WAS CLRED THE OPTION AND THAT HIS FLT PATH MIGHT HAVE BEEN A CONFLICT WITH ME. HOWEVER, I SAW NO IMMEDIATE CONFLICT SINCE I WAS AROUND 500 FT AGL AND 1.5 MI FROM THE RWY. HE CLAIMED HE WAS GOING TO FILE A HATR AGAINST ATC. ATC CALLED ME THE NEXT DAY ADVISING ME THE TAPES HAD BEEN PULLED AND A HATR FILED AGAINST THEM. THEY ALSO STATED THAT THEY HAD GIVEN ME A THIRD CLRNC ON MY GAR TO FLY E OF THE FIELD. MY CREW WAS UNAWARE OF THAT CLRNC. OUR PERCEPTION IS THAT NO IMMEDIATE CONFLICT EXISTED. HOWEVER, ON THE ILS OUR POS TO THE T43 IS BEAK-TO-BEAK SINCE THE ILS COURSE POS THE ACFT TO THE 12 O'CLOCK POS. CONFUSING CLRNCS BY MULTIPLE CTLRS MAY NOT HAVE HELPED PERCEPTIONS, AND TURNING US E OF THE FIELD WOULD HAVE PUT US IN CONFLICT WITH TFC ON BASE LEG FROM THE W. WE FELT OUR COURSE OF ACTION TO BE CORRECT AT THE TIME, BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD, AS WELL AS THE SAFEST DUE TO OTHER TFC IN THE AREA.

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.