Narrative:

We took off runway 19 and executed a left downwind departure. At 2000 ft MSL, the commercial pilot student reduced power to 'cruise climb' at which time I advised him to close the throttle to the idle position to simulate engine failure. My intention was that he would continue in the downwind position and land on runway 19. Instead, intending to land on runway 28, he executed a right 90+ degree turn, followed by a left teardrop turn that put him on a doglegged right base for runway 28. At this point, he determined he was too high to land on runway 28 so he continued to make a left turn putting the airplane in a left downwind position for runway 28. He then decided he was too low to continue another 180 degrees of turn for a landing on runway 28, (we were now 1000 ft MSL) at which point I announced that 'I have the airplane' and I applied full power to execute a go around. The student relinquished controls, but then suddenly grabbed the control yoke and put the airplane in an excessively nose high pitch-up attitude. This oscillation was induced 2 times by the student until I gained full control of the airplane. For a brief moment, I had the aircraft under control and climbing at vx, until the student, on his own initiative, retracted the wing flaps to their 0 degree position (I do not recall their exact position prior to being retracted, I also do not recall the position of the landing gear). These actions by the student sacrificed altitude to the extent that the airplane flew through the tops of trees as we climbed during the go around maneuver. We obtained sufficient altitude and determined that the airplane was able to be flown at which time we returned to the airport. In retrospect, had I not allowed the training exercise to progress as far, we would not have been in a situation where the student's inappropriate actions compromised our safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28 HITS THE TREES DURING A TRAINING FLT AT OW3 WHEN A SIMULATED ENG FAILURE APCH DOES NOT GO AS EXPECTED.

Narrative: WE TOOK OFF RWY 19 AND EXECUTED A L DOWNWIND DEP. AT 2000 FT MSL, THE COMMERCIAL PLT STUDENT REDUCED PWR TO 'CRUISE CLB' AT WHICH TIME I ADVISED HIM TO CLOSE THE THROTTLE TO THE IDLE POS TO SIMULATE ENG FAILURE. MY INTENTION WAS THAT HE WOULD CONTINUE IN THE DOWNWIND POS AND LAND ON RWY 19. INSTEAD, INTENDING TO LAND ON RWY 28, HE EXECUTED A R 90+ DEG TURN, FOLLOWED BY A L TEARDROP TURN THAT PUT HIM ON A DOGLEGGED R BASE FOR RWY 28. AT THIS POINT, HE DETERMINED HE WAS TOO HIGH TO LAND ON RWY 28 SO HE CONTINUED TO MAKE A L TURN PUTTING THE AIRPLANE IN A L DOWNWIND POS FOR RWY 28. HE THEN DECIDED HE WAS TOO LOW TO CONTINUE ANOTHER 180 DEGS OF TURN FOR A LNDG ON RWY 28, (WE WERE NOW 1000 FT MSL) AT WHICH POINT I ANNOUNCED THAT 'I HAVE THE AIRPLANE' AND I APPLIED FULL PWR TO EXECUTE A GAR. THE STUDENT RELINQUISHED CTLS, BUT THEN SUDDENLY GRABBED THE CTL YOKE AND PUT THE AIRPLANE IN AN EXCESSIVELY NOSE HIGH PITCH-UP ATTITUDE. THIS OSCILLATION WAS INDUCED 2 TIMES BY THE STUDENT UNTIL I GAINED FULL CTL OF THE AIRPLANE. FOR A BRIEF MOMENT, I HAD THE ACFT UNDER CTL AND CLBING AT VX, UNTIL THE STUDENT, ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, RETRACTED THE WING FLAPS TO THEIR 0 DEG POS (I DO NOT RECALL THEIR EXACT POS PRIOR TO BEING RETRACTED, I ALSO DO NOT RECALL THE POS OF THE LNDG GEAR). THESE ACTIONS BY THE STUDENT SACRIFICED ALT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE AIRPLANE FLEW THROUGH THE TOPS OF TREES AS WE CLBED DURING THE GAR MANEUVER. WE OBTAINED SUFFICIENT ALT AND DETERMINED THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS ABLE TO BE FLOWN AT WHICH TIME WE RETURNED TO THE ARPT. IN RETROSPECT, HAD I NOT ALLOWED THE TRAINING EXERCISE TO PROGRESS AS FAR, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN A SIT WHERE THE STUDENT'S INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS COMPROMISED OUR SAFETY.

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.