Narrative:

Today I was flying with a student in a cirrus sr-20. She is rated as a private pilot and is near the end of her course for an instrument rating. I am a cfii and an employee at the 141 school to which the aircraft belongs. We were doing a proficiency flight and were coming in to land at ZZZ. We were conducting a practice instrument approach to runway xx in VMC. On final; the tower asked us to lahso of runway xy and we accepted. That would give us 7;300 ft of available landing distance. The metar at the time was '310 degrees at 10 KTS; 10 SM visibility; few 070; 14/M07; A3010 rmk AO2 SLP193 T01441072.' while we were on final; the controller cleared another aircraft to land on runway xy and that traffic would be holding short on runway xx. The pilot of the aircraft landing on runway xy responded to the effect of 'cleared to land; runway xy; will look for traffic holding short on runway xx.' the controller responded to the effect 'you're cleared to land runway xy; you're not gonna see the traffic;' I'm just required to say that.' it appeared that the conflict with this traffic was improbable (at best) in reality; just issued as a required formality by the controller. On final; we were in a stabilized approach for landing. The pilot flying (private rated) had a left crosswind correction applied to the controls. In the flare; we started drifting to the left. Apparently; she had either too much aileron correction or the wind gave a moment of relief. She could've used a little more right rudder as well. I did exert some force on the right rudder; but the nose was still pointed well to the left of the runway heading. The conditions at the time were a bit gusty. The next reported metar after we landed was; '330 degrees at 12 KTS gusting to 25 KTS; 10 SM; clear; 11/M03 A3012 rmk AO2 pk wnd 34026/2043 SLP200 T01111028 53011.' given the difference of atmospheric conditions in the two metar reports; it is clear that the weather was changing rapidly during the time of our approach to landing. We touched down to the left of the runway. We soon developed a porpoise. As the aircraft went through divergent oscillations; and we were nearing the left edge of the runway; she put in full power and commenced a go-around. I then reported to the tower that we were going around. I believe I made that call when we were somewhere in the neighborhood to 50-100 ft AGL. We probably cleared the hold short line of runway xy at about 300-400 ft AGL. Her aim point was the 500 ft runway markings. We touched down somewhere around the 1;000 footers and were on the ground for somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-5 seconds. We had unquestionably encountered an unsafe landing condition. For the safety of the aircraft and its occupants; a rejected landing was the course of action we employed. This is consistent with the training I have received in landing the cirrus sr-20 (fom operating procedures dated aug/07). We promptly notified the controller and visually looked to maintain separation from other aircraft. Aim section 4-3-11 refers to the procedures for conducting lahsos. Aggregately; the section asserts that lahso operations can only be conducted in VMC (at least 1;000 ft ceilings and 3 miles visibility). The intent of having basic VFR weather conditions is to allow pilots to maintain visual contact with other aircraft and ground vehicle operations. Aim section 4-3-11 specifically addresses the issue of a rejected landing. It says; in part; 'if a rejected landing becomes necessary after accepting a lahso clearance; the pilot should maintain safe separation from other aircraft or vehicles; and should promptly notify the controller.' we complied with both the 'letter of the law' and the intent of the language. After I reported that we were going around; we were told to fly runway heading and then received directions to turn right to a downwind and eventually land on runway xy. I am not aware of any traffic that we came close to and we did not receive any traffic messa

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SR-20 Instructor pilot reported that his student executed a go-around after a porpoised landing caused by wind shift on final. During the go around a LAHSO clearance was unavoidably not adhered too.

Narrative: Today I was flying with a student in a Cirrus SR-20. She is rated as a Private Pilot and is near the end of her course for an instrument rating. I am a CFII and an employee at the 141 school to which the aircraft belongs. We were doing a proficiency flight and were coming in to land at ZZZ. We were conducting a practice instrument approach to Runway XX in VMC. On final; the Tower asked us to LAHSO of Runway XY and we accepted. That would give us 7;300 FT of available landing distance. The METAR at the time was '310 degrees at 10 KTS; 10 SM visibility; FEW 070; 14/M07; A3010 RMK AO2 SLP193 T01441072.' While we were on final; the Controller cleared another aircraft to land on Runway XY and that traffic would be holding short on Runway XX. The Pilot of the aircraft landing on Runway XY responded to the effect of 'cleared to land; Runway XY; will look for traffic holding short on Runway XX.' The Controller responded to the effect 'You're cleared to land Runway XY; you're not gonna see the traffic;' I'm just required to say that.' It appeared that the conflict with this traffic was improbable (at best) in reality; just issued as a required formality by the Controller. On final; we were in a stabilized approach for landing. The pilot flying (private rated) had a left crosswind correction applied to the controls. In the flare; we started drifting to the left. Apparently; she had either too much aileron correction or the wind gave a moment of relief. She could've used a little more right rudder as well. I did exert some force on the right rudder; but the nose was still pointed well to the left of the runway heading. The conditions at the time were a bit gusty. The next reported METAR after we landed was; '330 degrees at 12 KTS gusting to 25 KTS; 10 SM; CLEAR; 11/M03 A3012 RMK AO2 PK WND 34026/2043 SLP200 T01111028 53011.' Given the difference of atmospheric conditions in the two METAR reports; it is clear that the weather was changing rapidly during the time of our approach to landing. We touched down to the left of the runway. We soon developed a porpoise. As the aircraft went through divergent oscillations; and we were nearing the left edge of the runway; she put in full power and commenced a go-around. I then reported to the Tower that we were going around. I believe I made that call when we were somewhere in the neighborhood to 50-100 FT AGL. We probably cleared the hold short line of Runway XY at about 300-400 FT AGL. Her aim point was the 500 FT runway markings. We touched down somewhere around the 1;000 footers and were on the ground for somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-5 seconds. We had unquestionably encountered an unsafe landing condition. For the safety of the aircraft and its occupants; a rejected landing was the course of action we employed. This is consistent with the training I have received in landing the Cirrus SR-20 (FOM Operating procedures dated Aug/07). We promptly notified the Controller and visually looked to maintain separation from other aircraft. AIM Section 4-3-11 refers to the procedures for conducting LAHSOs. Aggregately; the section asserts that LAHSO operations can only be conducted in VMC (at least 1;000 FT ceilings and 3 miles visibility). The intent of having basic VFR weather conditions is to allow pilots to maintain visual contact with other aircraft and ground vehicle operations. AIM Section 4-3-11 specifically addresses the issue of a rejected landing. It says; in part; 'if a rejected landing becomes necessary after accepting a LAHSO clearance; the Pilot should maintain safe separation from other aircraft or vehicles; and should promptly notify the Controller.' We complied with both the 'Letter of the Law' and the intent of the language. After I reported that we were going around; we were told to fly runway heading and then received directions to turn right to a downwind and eventually land on Runway XY. I am not aware of any traffic that we came close to and we did not receive any traffic messa

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.