Narrative:

The event occurred on an instrument training flight, while practicing multiple instrument approachs at jxn. Lansing approach provided vectors to the final approach course for the ILS runway 24. Lansing cleared us for the approach, terminated radar services and handed us over to jxn tower. (The approach was being conducted under partial panel, with the heading indicator and attitude indicator covered.) the tower requested we report 7 mi, and we complied, after which we were asked to report jakso. After reporting jakso, we were asked to report a 3 mi final. After crossing jakso and initiating the descent, we lost the #1 VOR localizer. The conditions were cavu, so I allowed the student to proceed with the approach as a localizer approach on the #2 VOR. At approximately 5 mi, the tower informed us of opposite direction traffic doing a touch-and-go on runway 6. We reported the traffic in sight and kept the traffic in sight during the remainder of the approach. As we approached 3 mi, and my student prepared to give his position report, the controller's transmission was stepped on by other radio communications. The very next call was the controller asking our position. We were at 2.5 mi DME at the time and reported our position. At this point the controller expressed his frustration that we did not call 3 mi. The oncoming traffic had executed a go around and an early turn to the south well clear of our course, so we were never in any danger of collision. The controller then asked us to turn to 360 degrees and climb to 3000 ft. We acknowledged. My student was a little slow in executing the turn as he was overloaded by that point. The tower's transmission was also very weak and hard to copy, so he did not understand the instructions. I took the controls and turned to 360 degrees and initiated the climb to 3000 ft. The tower controller expressed his unhappiness with the late turn, and I tried to explain what happened. At this point, we had completed the approachs we had requested, so we canceled IFR. Cancellation was received, frequency change was approved, and we departed VFR to the northwest. While still on the frequency, I apologized for any confusion we might have caused, and asked if I could call him on the phone once back on the ground. The controller said it was not necessary, but stressed again the importance of position reports, and turning to assigned headings. Upon landing, I called the tower controller anyway, and we discussed the situation. He expressed his concern at being the only one in the tower, with lots of VFR traffic, opposite direction IFR traffic, and confusion over instructions he had given. I explained the event again from our perspective. We had a profitable discussion and he said that he was not taking any action over the event. Actions to prevent recurrence: we should not have accepted a clearance to a runway with traffic landing in the opposite direction. Lansing approach should not hand over IFR traffic to jxn tower, when there is busy VFR traffic landing the opposite direction. In cavu conditions, it may be easier just to cancel IFR and do the approachs VFR in constant contact with the tower, under their control, and separation. (The student does not benefit from the 'real' IFR world in that case though.)

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT IFR ON A TRAINING FLT AT JXN ISSUED AN ILS APCH TO RWY 24 WITH VFR TFC OPERATING OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

Narrative: THE EVENT OCCURRED ON AN INST TRAINING FLT, WHILE PRACTICING MULTIPLE INST APCHS AT JXN. LANSING APCH PROVIDED VECTORS TO THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR THE ILS RWY 24. LANSING CLRED US FOR THE APCH, TERMINATED RADAR SVCS AND HANDED US OVER TO JXN TWR. (THE APCH WAS BEING CONDUCTED UNDER PARTIAL PANEL, WITH THE HDG INDICATOR AND ATTITUDE INDICATOR COVERED.) THE TWR REQUESTED WE RPT 7 MI, AND WE COMPLIED, AFTER WHICH WE WERE ASKED TO RPT JAKSO. AFTER RPTING JAKSO, WE WERE ASKED TO RPT A 3 MI FINAL. AFTER XING JAKSO AND INITIATING THE DSCNT, WE LOST THE #1 VOR LOC. THE CONDITIONS WERE CAVU, SO I ALLOWED THE STUDENT TO PROCEED WITH THE APCH AS A LOC APCH ON THE #2 VOR. AT APPROX 5 MI, THE TWR INFORMED US OF OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC DOING A TOUCH-AND-GO ON RWY 6. WE RPTED THE TFC IN SIGHT AND KEPT THE TFC IN SIGHT DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE APCH. AS WE APCHED 3 MI, AND MY STUDENT PREPARED TO GIVE HIS POS RPT, THE CTLR'S XMISSION WAS STEPPED ON BY OTHER RADIO COMS. THE VERY NEXT CALL WAS THE CTLR ASKING OUR POS. WE WERE AT 2.5 MI DME AT THE TIME AND RPTED OUR POS. AT THIS POINT THE CTLR EXPRESSED HIS FRUSTRATION THAT WE DID NOT CALL 3 MI. THE ONCOMING TFC HAD EXECUTED A GAR AND AN EARLY TURN TO THE S WELL CLR OF OUR COURSE, SO WE WERE NEVER IN ANY DANGER OF COLLISION. THE CTLR THEN ASKED US TO TURN TO 360 DEGS AND CLB TO 3000 FT. WE ACKNOWLEDGED. MY STUDENT WAS A LITTLE SLOW IN EXECUTING THE TURN AS HE WAS OVERLOADED BY THAT POINT. THE TWR'S XMISSION WAS ALSO VERY WEAK AND HARD TO COPY, SO HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE INSTRUCTIONS. I TOOK THE CTLS AND TURNED TO 360 DEGS AND INITIATED THE CLB TO 3000 FT. THE TWR CTLR EXPRESSED HIS UNHAPPINESS WITH THE LATE TURN, AND I TRIED TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED. AT THIS POINT, WE HAD COMPLETED THE APCHS WE HAD REQUESTED, SO WE CANCELED IFR. CANCELLATION WAS RECEIVED, FREQ CHANGE WAS APPROVED, AND WE DEPARTED VFR TO THE NW. WHILE STILL ON THE FREQ, I APOLOGIZED FOR ANY CONFUSION WE MIGHT HAVE CAUSED, AND ASKED IF I COULD CALL HIM ON THE PHONE ONCE BACK ON THE GND. THE CTLR SAID IT WAS NOT NECESSARY, BUT STRESSED AGAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF POS RPTS, AND TURNING TO ASSIGNED HDGS. UPON LNDG, I CALLED THE TWR CTLR ANYWAY, AND WE DISCUSSED THE SIT. HE EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN AT BEING THE ONLY ONE IN THE TWR, WITH LOTS OF VFR TFC, OPPOSITE DIRECTION IFR TFC, AND CONFUSION OVER INSTRUCTIONS HE HAD GIVEN. I EXPLAINED THE EVENT AGAIN FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. WE HAD A PROFITABLE DISCUSSION AND HE SAID THAT HE WAS NOT TAKING ANY ACTION OVER THE EVENT. ACTIONS TO PREVENT RECURRENCE: WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A CLRNC TO A RWY WITH TFC LNDG IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. LANSING APCH SHOULD NOT HAND OVER IFR TFC TO JXN TWR, WHEN THERE IS BUSY VFR TFC LNDG THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. IN CAVU CONDITIONS, IT MAY BE EASIER JUST TO CANCEL IFR AND DO THE APCHS VFR IN CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THE TWR, UNDER THEIR CTL, AND SEPARATION. (THE STUDENT DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM THE 'REAL' IFR WORLD IN THAT CASE THOUGH.)

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.