Narrative:

We had requested a touch-and-go to be followed by an IFR clearance back into fpr, which was granted. However, while on the approach, the student got behind aircraft. As a result, the aircraft was at an altitude roughly 500 ft AGL and within .5 NM of the runway. Furthermore, the landing checklist had not been completed which resulted in the landing gear not extended. Nevertheless, at this point I advised the student, as his instructor and PNF, that the gear was not down and we were too high. The student responded by going missed. My student flew the missed, based on the amended missed instructions given, which were to fly runway heading and climb and maintain 1500 ft and no turns were made before the missed approach point, yet none were necessary. I immediately advised the local controller that we were going around. The controller responded in an aggressive manner by asking me the reason for the go around. At this point, my student and I were going through the go around checklist and I responded by telling him that this was 'a training flight and the gear is not down.' he instantaneously, again in a continued hostile manner, questioned my decision and told me that I had to do the touch-and-go because this is what he cleared me for and he was 'counting on' my touch-and-go for IFR spacing. He told me that I could only make such a decision for an emergency or for a technical problem and my decision can be considered a 'violation.' he asked if I had either of these and I responded with a negative. My student and I made a decision to go around based on a few reasons. However, in the interest of safety I kept the conversation between the controller and I to a minimum and apologized.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: STUDENT PLT WITH FLT INSTRUCTOR ARE CHASTISED BY THE CTLR FOR MAKING A MISSED APCH INSTEAD OF A TOUCH-AND-GO AS CLRED.

Narrative: WE HAD REQUESTED A TOUCH-AND-GO TO BE FOLLOWED BY AN IFR CLRNC BACK INTO FPR, WHICH WAS GRANTED. HOWEVER, WHILE ON THE APCH, THE STUDENT GOT BEHIND ACFT. AS A RESULT, THE ACFT WAS AT AN ALT ROUGHLY 500 FT AGL AND WITHIN .5 NM OF THE RWY. FURTHERMORE, THE LNDG CHKLIST HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED WHICH RESULTED IN THE LNDG GEAR NOT EXTENDED. NEVERTHELESS, AT THIS POINT I ADVISED THE STUDENT, AS HIS INSTRUCTOR AND PNF, THAT THE GEAR WAS NOT DOWN AND WE WERE TOO HIGH. THE STUDENT RESPONDED BY GOING MISSED. MY STUDENT FLEW THE MISSED, BASED ON THE AMENDED MISSED INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN, WHICH WERE TO FLY RWY HDG AND CLB AND MAINTAIN 1500 FT AND NO TURNS WERE MADE BEFORE THE MISSED APCH POINT, YET NONE WERE NECESSARY. I IMMEDIATELY ADVISED THE LCL CTLR THAT WE WERE GOING AROUND. THE CTLR RESPONDED IN AN AGGRESSIVE MANNER BY ASKING ME THE REASON FOR THE GAR. AT THIS POINT, MY STUDENT AND I WERE GOING THROUGH THE GAR CHKLIST AND I RESPONDED BY TELLING HIM THAT THIS WAS 'A TRAINING FLT AND THE GEAR IS NOT DOWN.' HE INSTANTANEOUSLY, AGAIN IN A CONTINUED HOSTILE MANNER, QUESTIONED MY DECISION AND TOLD ME THAT I HAD TO DO THE TOUCH-AND-GO BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT HE CLRED ME FOR AND HE WAS 'COUNTING ON' MY TOUCH-AND-GO FOR IFR SPACING. HE TOLD ME THAT I COULD ONLY MAKE SUCH A DECISION FOR AN EMER OR FOR A TECHNICAL PROB AND MY DECISION CAN BE CONSIDERED A 'VIOLATION.' HE ASKED IF I HAD EITHER OF THESE AND I RESPONDED WITH A NEGATIVE. MY STUDENT AND I MADE A DECISION TO GO AROUND BASED ON A FEW REASONS. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY I KEPT THE CONVERSATION BTWN THE CTLR AND I TO A MINIMUM AND APOLOGIZED.

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.