Narrative:

During a commercial training cross country flight, the instructor made a diversion procedure to an airport that he personally had not been to. As far as the student's perception of the instructor's familiarity with the conditions, terrain, and airport itself, heavy doubt surfaced. A descent was made into the landing environment with winds at +21 KTS and a surrounding terrain rising to 2000-3000 ft AGL. The student aborted the landing and miscommunicated his intentions by stating 'I'm aborting this.' the instructor interpreted the announcement as an aborted landing only and wished to continue for a second try. When the student voiced his concerns about the high winds and high terrain elevation and the decision to discontinue to the airport, the instructor became frustrated. This decision of the student was interpreted as an 'anti-authority/authorized' hazardous attitude. When confronted about the choice, a cockpit conflict ensued. The conflict was fairly brief, of about 5 mins. However, the words and colorful expletives that were used were unprofessional on the part of both instructor and student. This cockpit disagreement was, in the student's view, caused by numerous factors, including lack of planning and miscom on the student's behalf. What contributed was the lack of confidence by the student in the instructor's familiarity and judgement concerning the diversion to the short runway, mountainous airport, with high winds present. Although the student felt his safety was compromised, he could have voiced his concerns in a more professional way. The flight continued safely with an unexpected cooperation by both parties to the originating airport. Most likely due to the desire by both pilots to land and relieve the present cockpit tension. All things considered, (lack of planning, familiarity, poor judgement, hazardous terrain, high winds, mechanical turbulence, cockpit miscom/conflict) the flight may have ended worse had the student not elected to discontinue to the diversion airport. In my point of view my student got behind the aircraft. We then descended to overfly the field and enter a left downwind for runway 19. We continued to descend below tpa and entered the downwind at a 90 degree angle failing to compensate for wind and altitude. We continued for runway 19 and overshot it by about 3/4 of a mi.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28T TRAINING FLT IS ABORTED WITH A RETURN TO BASE AFTER A DISAGREEMENT BREAKS OUT BTWN THE STUDENT AND THE CFI REGARDING THE SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO AN ATTEMPTED LNDG AT ZZZ, US.

Narrative: DURING A COMMERCIAL TRAINING XCOUNTRY FLT, THE INSTRUCTOR MADE A DIVERSION PROC TO AN ARPT THAT HE PERSONALLY HAD NOT BEEN TO. AS FAR AS THE STUDENT'S PERCEPTION OF THE INSTRUCTOR'S FAMILIARITY WITH THE CONDITIONS, TERRAIN, AND ARPT ITSELF, HVY DOUBT SURFACED. A DSCNT WAS MADE INTO THE LNDG ENVIRONMENT WITH WINDS AT +21 KTS AND A SURROUNDING TERRAIN RISING TO 2000-3000 FT AGL. THE STUDENT ABORTED THE LNDG AND MISCOMMUNICATED HIS INTENTIONS BY STATING 'I'M ABORTING THIS.' THE INSTRUCTOR INTERPED THE ANNOUNCEMENT AS AN ABORTED LNDG ONLY AND WISHED TO CONTINUE FOR A SECOND TRY. WHEN THE STUDENT VOICED HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE HIGH WINDS AND HIGH TERRAIN ELEVATION AND THE DECISION TO DISCONTINUE TO THE ARPT, THE INSTRUCTOR BECAME FRUSTRATED. THIS DECISION OF THE STUDENT WAS INTERPED AS AN 'ANTI-AUTH' HAZARDOUS ATTITUDE. WHEN CONFRONTED ABOUT THE CHOICE, A COCKPIT CONFLICT ENSUED. THE CONFLICT WAS FAIRLY BRIEF, OF ABOUT 5 MINS. HOWEVER, THE WORDS AND COLORFUL EXPLETIVES THAT WERE USED WERE UNPROFESSIONAL ON THE PART OF BOTH INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT. THIS COCKPIT DISAGREEMENT WAS, IN THE STUDENT'S VIEW, CAUSED BY NUMEROUS FACTORS, INCLUDING LACK OF PLANNING AND MISCOM ON THE STUDENT'S BEHALF. WHAT CONTRIBUTED WAS THE LACK OF CONFIDENCE BY THE STUDENT IN THE INSTRUCTOR'S FAMILIARITY AND JUDGEMENT CONCERNING THE DIVERSION TO THE SHORT RWY, MOUNTAINOUS ARPT, WITH HIGH WINDS PRESENT. ALTHOUGH THE STUDENT FELT HIS SAFETY WAS COMPROMISED, HE COULD HAVE VOICED HIS CONCERNS IN A MORE PROFESSIONAL WAY. THE FLT CONTINUED SAFELY WITH AN UNEXPECTED COOPERATION BY BOTH PARTIES TO THE ORIGINATING ARPT. MOST LIKELY DUE TO THE DESIRE BY BOTH PLTS TO LAND AND RELIEVE THE PRESENT COCKPIT TENSION. ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, (LACK OF PLANNING, FAMILIARITY, POOR JUDGEMENT, HAZARDOUS TERRAIN, HIGH WINDS, MECHANICAL TURB, COCKPIT MISCOM/CONFLICT) THE FLT MAY HAVE ENDED WORSE HAD THE STUDENT NOT ELECTED TO DISCONTINUE TO THE DIVERSION ARPT. IN MY POINT OF VIEW MY STUDENT GOT BEHIND THE ACFT. WE THEN DSNDED TO OVERFLY THE FIELD AND ENTER A L DOWNWIND FOR RWY 19. WE CONTINUED TO DSND BELOW TPA AND ENTERED THE DOWNWIND AT A 90 DEG ANGLE FAILING TO COMPENSATE FOR WIND AND ALT. WE CONTINUED FOR RWY 19 AND OVERSHOT IT BY ABOUT 3/4 OF A MI.

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.