Narrative:

I was a non flying CFI (in the right seat of a C172) undergoing a cfii check. The check pilot was flying an ILS to runway 25. It was a quiet evening, VMC, no traffic in the class D airspace. We had previously flown a VOR approach to runway 7, circling to runway 25, and I executed a low approach to the missed approach to hold at the NDB. We had asked for and received permission to fly the ILS 25. The check pilot said 'I've got the aircraft' and we properly exchanged controls. He directed me not to teach him on this approach, but to be quiet, pointing when necessary and recording common errors for later discussion. He asked me to describe steps for a constant FPM descent on the ILS, and then said 'now be quiet and observe.' he occasionally would induce an error and I'd point, otherwise I stayed silent. I expected him to go around, but at decision altitude he said, 'I can only descend further if what?' I described the requirements. He said 'ok, I'm only flying the VASI's' and descended further. Just above the runway, he chopped power and landed. The tower then advised we had not been cleared to land! He apologized very sincerely and we both discussed what had happened. We were so involved with the check ride and the training that we inadvertently missed a critical step. It is exactly the kind of deviation from normal procedures that can result in a gear up landing. I later apologized to the tower controller and he seemed to accept that we were genuinely alarmed and sorry for what had happened. It serves to reinforce my belief that when engaged in training, we must take extra steps to ensure that normal procedures, and a normal sequence, are observed. It is vitally important for the person being checked, even when non flying, not to be intimidated by the check pilot or the circumstances such that he loses sight of his PIC responsibilities. This improper landing probably was the result of many factors, including an exceptionally quiet night at a deserted but twred airfield. The normal sequencing calls (ie, 'report on inbound') were absent. We became totally absorbed in training to the exclusion of good airmanship. Nevertheless, it was an inexcusable oversight and real slap in the face for someone who is obsessed with flight safety and good 'adm.' I, for one, will strive as hard as I can to imbue my students with the proper balance between respect and deference to the check pilot (at the appropriate times) and a bold, 'I'm in charge' attitude when it comes to exercising PIC judgement.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CFI RIDING R SEAT GETTING HIS CFII CHK AND HIS CHK PLT, PF, LWOC AFTER PERFORMING AN ILS TO RWY 25 AT LZU, GA.

Narrative: I WAS A NON FLYING CFI (IN THE R SEAT OF A C172) UNDERGOING A CFII CHK. THE CHK PLT WAS FLYING AN ILS TO RWY 25. IT WAS A QUIET EVENING, VMC, NO TFC IN THE CLASS D AIRSPACE. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY FLOWN A VOR APCH TO RWY 7, CIRCLING TO RWY 25, AND I EXECUTED A LOW APCH TO THE MISSED APCH TO HOLD AT THE NDB. WE HAD ASKED FOR AND RECEIVED PERMISSION TO FLY THE ILS 25. THE CHK PLT SAID 'I'VE GOT THE ACFT' AND WE PROPERLY EXCHANGED CTLS. HE DIRECTED ME NOT TO TEACH HIM ON THIS APCH, BUT TO BE QUIET, POINTING WHEN NECESSARY AND RECORDING COMMON ERRORS FOR LATER DISCUSSION. HE ASKED ME TO DESCRIBE STEPS FOR A CONSTANT FPM DSCNT ON THE ILS, AND THEN SAID 'NOW BE QUIET AND OBSERVE.' HE OCCASIONALLY WOULD INDUCE AN ERROR AND I'D POINT, OTHERWISE I STAYED SILENT. I EXPECTED HIM TO GO AROUND, BUT AT DECISION ALT HE SAID, 'I CAN ONLY DSND FURTHER IF WHAT?' I DESCRIBED THE REQUIREMENTS. HE SAID 'OK, I'M ONLY FLYING THE VASI'S' AND DSNDED FURTHER. JUST ABOVE THE RWY, HE CHOPPED PWR AND LANDED. THE TWR THEN ADVISED WE HAD NOT BEEN CLRED TO LAND! HE APOLOGIZED VERY SINCERELY AND WE BOTH DISCUSSED WHAT HAD HAPPENED. WE WERE SO INVOLVED WITH THE CHK RIDE AND THE TRAINING THAT WE INADVERTENTLY MISSED A CRITICAL STEP. IT IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF DEV FROM NORMAL PROCS THAT CAN RESULT IN A GEAR UP LNDG. I LATER APOLOGIZED TO THE TWR CTLR AND HE SEEMED TO ACCEPT THAT WE WERE GENUINELY ALARMED AND SORRY FOR WHAT HAD HAPPENED. IT SERVES TO REINFORCE MY BELIEF THAT WHEN ENGAGED IN TRAINING, WE MUST TAKE EXTRA STEPS TO ENSURE THAT NORMAL PROCS, AND A NORMAL SEQUENCE, ARE OBSERVED. IT IS VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE PERSON BEING CHKED, EVEN WHEN NON FLYING, NOT TO BE INTIMIDATED BY THE CHK PLT OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH THAT HE LOSES SIGHT OF HIS PIC RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS IMPROPER LNDG PROBABLY WAS THE RESULT OF MANY FACTORS, INCLUDING AN EXCEPTIONALLY QUIET NIGHT AT A DESERTED BUT TWRED AIRFIELD. THE NORMAL SEQUENCING CALLS (IE, 'RPT ON INBOUND') WERE ABSENT. WE BECAME TOTALLY ABSORBED IN TRAINING TO THE EXCLUSION OF GOOD AIRMANSHIP. NEVERTHELESS, IT WAS AN INEXCUSABLE OVERSIGHT AND REAL SLAP IN THE FACE FOR SOMEONE WHO IS OBSESSED WITH FLT SAFETY AND GOOD 'ADM.' I, FOR ONE, WILL STRIVE AS HARD AS I CAN TO IMBUE MY STUDENTS WITH THE PROPER BAL BTWN RESPECT AND DEFERENCE TO THE CHK PLT (AT THE APPROPRIATE TIMES) AND A BOLD, 'I'M IN CHARGE' ATTITUDE WHEN IT COMES TO EXERCISING PIC JUDGEMENT.

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.