Narrative:

During a VFR approach to lit; the CFI and private pilot were assigned a visual descent to 2500 ft MSL and told to make left traffic for runway 18. Approach control directed us to maintain visual separation from a regional jet that was on final approach for runway 22R. The private pilot continued his descent through 2500 ft MSL to approximately 2300 ft MSL before the CFI was able to arrest the descent and establish a climb back to the assigned altitude. Simultaneously; ATC queried our altitude; cleared us to land on runway 18 and advised us to contact the tower. As the CFI apologized to approach control for the deviation; the private pilot initiated a turn to the south; at which time the CFI saw the landing lights of a C130 that was performing touch-and-goes on runway 22L. Believing the C130 was closer than it in fact was; the CFI initiated an evasive maneuver. Because the frequency change to tower was not accomplished; approach asked our intentions. The CFI informed approach control that he thought the C130 had been a threat. Approach control explained that C130 was in the runway 22L pattern. Due to the private pilot's erratic airmanship and the night conditions; the CFI became situationally disoriented and asked for a vector to runway 18. The controller assigned a northerly vector with which the CFI complied; and after establishing the heading; exchanged controls with the private pilot. Again; approach directed us to contact the tower. The private pilot acknowledged but tuned an incorrect frequency which he had mistakenly written in his flight log. Whilst the CFI consulted his sectional chart for the correct frequency; the private pilot lined up on runway 22L and began his descent. Tower informed us that we were aligned on runway 22L and asked the C130 to extend his downwind. The CFI immediately took over the controls and informed the tower that he was performing a go around. Tower then asked if we would prefer to land runway 36. The CFI declined and asked for flight following back to ZZZ. In the future; the CFI will not assume that his students are as competent or proficient as their certificates or ratings imply. Additionally; the CFI will not allow a student to continue to manipulate the controls after making such consecutive errors under radar control or in a busy terminal area as the preceding narrative enumerates. Furthermore; the student is an alien pilot with whom the CFI has; naturally; many cultural and communicative differences. In the future; the CFI will more thoroughly consider the difficulties involved with instructing non-native english speakers; and exercise more diligence in assessing the student's comprehension of instructions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOW TIME CFI AND STUDENT ENCOUNTER NUMEROUS TRAFFIC AND ATC DIFFICULTIES WHILE ATTEMPTING TO LAND AT LIT.

Narrative: DURING A VFR APCH TO LIT; THE CFI AND PVT PLT WERE ASSIGNED A VISUAL DSCNT TO 2500 FT MSL AND TOLD TO MAKE L TFC FOR RWY 18. APCH CTL DIRECTED US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM A REGIONAL JET THAT WAS ON FINAL APCH FOR RWY 22R. THE PVT PLT CONTINUED HIS DSCNT THROUGH 2500 FT MSL TO APPROX 2300 FT MSL BEFORE THE CFI WAS ABLE TO ARREST THE DSCNT AND ESTABLISH A CLB BACK TO THE ASSIGNED ALT. SIMULTANEOUSLY; ATC QUERIED OUR ALT; CLRED US TO LAND ON RWY 18 AND ADVISED US TO CONTACT THE TWR. AS THE CFI APOLOGIZED TO APCH CTL FOR THE DEV; THE PVT PLT INITIATED A TURN TO THE S; AT WHICH TIME THE CFI SAW THE LNDG LIGHTS OF A C130 THAT WAS PERFORMING TOUCH-AND-GOES ON RWY 22L. BELIEVING THE C130 WAS CLOSER THAN IT IN FACT WAS; THE CFI INITIATED AN EVASIVE MANEUVER. BECAUSE THE FREQ CHANGE TO TWR WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED; APCH ASKED OUR INTENTIONS. THE CFI INFORMED APCH CTL THAT HE THOUGHT THE C130 HAD BEEN A THREAT. APCH CTL EXPLAINED THAT C130 WAS IN THE RWY 22L PATTERN. DUE TO THE PVT PLT'S ERRATIC AIRMANSHIP AND THE NIGHT CONDITIONS; THE CFI BECAME SITUATIONALLY DISORIENTED AND ASKED FOR A VECTOR TO RWY 18. THE CTLR ASSIGNED A NORTHERLY VECTOR WITH WHICH THE CFI COMPLIED; AND AFTER ESTABLISHING THE HDG; EXCHANGED CTLS WITH THE PVT PLT. AGAIN; APCH DIRECTED US TO CONTACT THE TWR. THE PVT PLT ACKNOWLEDGED BUT TUNED AN INCORRECT FREQ WHICH HE HAD MISTAKENLY WRITTEN IN HIS FLT LOG. WHILST THE CFI CONSULTED HIS SECTIONAL CHART FOR THE CORRECT FREQ; THE PVT PLT LINED UP ON RWY 22L AND BEGAN HIS DSCNT. TWR INFORMED US THAT WE WERE ALIGNED ON RWY 22L AND ASKED THE C130 TO EXTEND HIS DOWNWIND. THE CFI IMMEDIATELY TOOK OVER THE CTLS AND INFORMED THE TWR THAT HE WAS PERFORMING A GAR. TWR THEN ASKED IF WE WOULD PREFER TO LAND RWY 36. THE CFI DECLINED AND ASKED FOR FLT FOLLOWING BACK TO ZZZ. IN THE FUTURE; THE CFI WILL NOT ASSUME THAT HIS STUDENTS ARE AS COMPETENT OR PROFICIENT AS THEIR CERTIFICATES OR RATINGS IMPLY. ADDITIONALLY; THE CFI WILL NOT ALLOW A STUDENT TO CONTINUE TO MANIPULATE THE CTLS AFTER MAKING SUCH CONSECUTIVE ERRORS UNDER RADAR CTL OR IN A BUSY TERMINAL AREA AS THE PRECEDING NARRATIVE ENUMERATES. FURTHERMORE; THE STUDENT IS AN ALIEN PLT WITH WHOM THE CFI HAS; NATURALLY; MANY CULTURAL AND COMMUNICATIVE DIFFERENCES. IN THE FUTURE; THE CFI WILL MORE THOROUGHLY CONSIDER THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED WITH INSTRUCTING NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS; AND EXERCISE MORE DILIGENCE IN ASSESSING THE STUDENT'S COMPREHENSION OF INSTRUCTIONS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.