Narrative:

My student was flying the ILS runway 35 into azo. Tower instructed us to go missed approach at the middle marker, climb to 2500 ft MSL and turn east to 090 degree heading. At the missed approach (middle marker) my student began to climb out. However, there was traffic on right downwind for runway 5 (azo). I took control of the aircraft when I saw conflicting traffic on the downwind. I climbed over the traffic in the pattern and began a turn to the west to avoid the other aircraft. Azo tower told us there was a loss of separation in the traffic pattern. I think it would be better in the future to not allow aircraft to fly the ILS runway 35 and go missed at the middle marker if there is conflicting traffic in the pattern for runway 5/23. However, it would make more sense to make traffic on the ILS runway 35 go missed before the middle marker for practice ILS runway 35 approachs into azo. Supplemental information from acn 633635: azo tower approved my student to enter right downwind for runway 5 at azo. While in the right downwind, I noticed another C172R at our altitude, heading toward us. I then took control of the aircraft and climbed above the conflicting traffic. Tower then cleared us to land runway 5. I told tower that there was conflicting traffic at our altitude. Tower then communicated to the other aircraft to stay clear of our aircraft. We landed the aircraft without incident on runway 5. I feel the problem was caused by the other pilot in the conflicting aircraft being inexperienced (solo student). Also, the tower at azo had only 1 person working both tower/ground. I feel that azo should have more than 1 person working tower when solo operations are in effect.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 ON ILS RWY 35 AT AZO IS GIVEN GAR, INSTRUCTED TO ENTER XWIND IN CONFLICT WITH RWY 5 DOWNWIND TFC.

Narrative: MY STUDENT WAS FLYING THE ILS RWY 35 INTO AZO. TWR INSTRUCTED US TO GO MISSED APCH AT THE MIDDLE MARKER, CLB TO 2500 FT MSL AND TURN E TO 090 DEG HDG. AT THE MISSED APCH (MIDDLE MARKER) MY STUDENT BEGAN TO CLB OUT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS TFC ON R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 5 (AZO). I TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT WHEN I SAW CONFLICTING TFC ON THE DOWNWIND. I CLBED OVER THE TFC IN THE PATTERN AND BEGAN A TURN TO THE W TO AVOID THE OTHER ACFT. AZO TWR TOLD US THERE WAS A LOSS OF SEPARATION IN THE TFC PATTERN. I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IN THE FUTURE TO NOT ALLOW ACFT TO FLY THE ILS RWY 35 AND GO MISSED AT THE MIDDLE MARKER IF THERE IS CONFLICTING TFC IN THE PATTERN FOR RWY 5/23. HOWEVER, IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO MAKE TFC ON THE ILS RWY 35 GO MISSED BEFORE THE MIDDLE MARKER FOR PRACTICE ILS RWY 35 APCHS INTO AZO. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 633635: AZO TWR APPROVED MY STUDENT TO ENTER R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 5 AT AZO. WHILE IN THE R DOWNWIND, I NOTICED ANOTHER C172R AT OUR ALT, HEADING TOWARD US. I THEN TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT AND CLBED ABOVE THE CONFLICTING TFC. TWR THEN CLRED US TO LAND RWY 5. I TOLD TWR THAT THERE WAS CONFLICTING TFC AT OUR ALT. TWR THEN COMMUNICATED TO THE OTHER ACFT TO STAY CLR OF OUR ACFT. WE LANDED THE ACFT WITHOUT INCIDENT ON RWY 5. I FEEL THE PROB WAS CAUSED BY THE OTHER PLT IN THE CONFLICTING ACFT BEING INEXPERIENCED (SOLO STUDENT). ALSO, THE TWR AT AZO HAD ONLY 1 PERSON WORKING BOTH TWR/GND. I FEEL THAT AZO SHOULD HAVE MORE THAN 1 PERSON WORKING TWR WHEN SOLO OPS ARE IN EFFECT.

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.