Narrative:

WX was VMC with sky clear and visibility 10 SM. I was performing simulated engine failures in the traffic pattern with my student during the latter part of the morning. During that period, an aircraft had entered the traffic pattern on the downwind for the runway in active use. I gave my student a simulated engine failure at 700 ft AGL during her turn to crosswind for the active use runway. The aircraft on downwind was, at that time, reporting a midfield downwind. I radioed that our aircraft was performing a 'simulated engine failure, turing base to final for runway 2.' the active at that time was runway 20. The other aircraft radioed to clarify what my intentions were, so I then reported a short final for runway 2, simulated engine failure. The pilot asked whether I had an emergency, to which I replied that I did not. During the radio xmissions, the other aircraft had turned base and final for runway 20. When our aircraft was at 200 ft AGL, I spotted the converging aircraft at approximately 400 ft AGL and approximately 1 1/2 mi ahead. I elected to initiate a 'go around' and reenter the pattern for runway 20 and radioed a 'go around.' the other aircraft landed runway 20 with no further incident. This occurrence was caused, in part, by my error in judgement of the other aircraft's speed, distance from the field, and should not have gone 'against the grain' of the traffic pattern. I should have gone around at an earlier time or not have performed the maneuver at all with traffic in the pattern.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28 CFI DISPLAYED POOR JUDGEMENT IN CONTINUING WITH A SIMULATED ENG OUT, WHILE FLYING THE OPPOSITE PATTERN TO OTHER TFC AT PGV.

Narrative: WX WAS VMC WITH SKY CLR AND VISIBILITY 10 SM. I WAS PERFORMING SIMULATED ENG FAILURES IN THE TFC PATTERN WITH MY STUDENT DURING THE LATTER PART OF THE MORNING. DURING THAT PERIOD, AN ACFT HAD ENTERED THE TFC PATTERN ON THE DOWNWIND FOR THE RWY IN ACTIVE USE. I GAVE MY STUDENT A SIMULATED ENG FAILURE AT 700 FT AGL DURING HER TURN TO XWIND FOR THE ACTIVE USE RWY. THE ACFT ON DOWNWIND WAS, AT THAT TIME, RPTING A MIDFIELD DOWNWIND. I RADIOED THAT OUR ACFT WAS PERFORMING A 'SIMULATED ENG FAILURE, TURING BASE TO FINAL FOR RWY 2.' THE ACTIVE AT THAT TIME WAS RWY 20. THE OTHER ACFT RADIOED TO CLARIFY WHAT MY INTENTIONS WERE, SO I THEN RPTED A SHORT FINAL FOR RWY 2, SIMULATED ENG FAILURE. THE PLT ASKED WHETHER I HAD AN EMER, TO WHICH I REPLIED THAT I DID NOT. DURING THE RADIO XMISSIONS, THE OTHER ACFT HAD TURNED BASE AND FINAL FOR RWY 20. WHEN OUR ACFT WAS AT 200 FT AGL, I SPOTTED THE CONVERGING ACFT AT APPROX 400 FT AGL AND APPROX 1 1/2 MI AHEAD. I ELECTED TO INITIATE A 'GAR' AND REENTER THE PATTERN FOR RWY 20 AND RADIOED A 'GAR.' THE OTHER ACFT LANDED RWY 20 WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENT. THIS OCCURRENCE WAS CAUSED, IN PART, BY MY ERROR IN JUDGEMENT OF THE OTHER ACFT'S SPD, DISTANCE FROM THE FIELD, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE 'AGAINST THE GRAIN' OF THE TFC PATTERN. I SHOULD HAVE GONE AROUND AT AN EARLIER TIME OR NOT HAVE PERFORMED THE MANEUVER AT ALL WITH TFC IN THE PATTERN.

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.