GA small aircraft failed to execute missed approach procedure at point instructed by ATCT.

Attributes
ACN	90265
Time
Date	198807
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : cgf
State Reference	OH
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : cgo
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 90 flight time total : 630 flight time type : 85
ASRS Report	90265
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : private
Events
Anomaly	non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	other other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We had just completed the ILS 23 to cuyahoga county and were being vectored for the localizer back course 5, also into cuyahoga county. The active runway was 23. My student was having great difficulty in maintaining altitude (+/-200') and heading (+/-2- degrees). While vectoring us for the approach, ATC issued to us several traffic advisories. As safety pilot, I was concentrating on locating the aircraft. My student was setting up for the approach in the meantime. Because of heavy traffic congestion, the tower told me to initiate the missed approach 5 mi from the runway, and missed approach procedures would be issued at that time. At what I believed to be the 3 mi point, I told my student to make a missed approach. Tower then informed me that I was much closer to the airport that 3 mi. Looking back at the situation, I should have noted that the mileage from the FAF to the missed approach point was 4.5 mi, and that the missed should have been initiated soon after passing the FAF. I was, however, concentrating on the numerous traffic advisories. Another factor was my unfamiliarity with the nearby, but seldom-used, airport (seldom used by me). I also believe the local controller could have issued a verbal command to execute a missed approach. This would have eliminated some of the guesswork.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA FAILED TO EXECUTE MISSED APCH PROC AT POINT INSTRUCTED BY ATCT.

Narrative: WE HAD JUST COMPLETED THE ILS 23 TO CUYAHOGA COUNTY AND WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE LOC BC 5, ALSO INTO CUYAHOGA COUNTY. THE ACTIVE RWY WAS 23. MY STUDENT WAS HAVING GREAT DIFFICULTY IN MAINTAINING ALT (+/-200') AND HDG (+/-2- DEGS). WHILE VECTORING US FOR THE APCH, ATC ISSUED TO US SEVERAL TFC ADVISORIES. AS SAFETY PLT, I WAS CONCENTRATING ON LOCATING THE ACFT. MY STUDENT WAS SETTING UP FOR THE APCH IN THE MEANTIME. BECAUSE OF HEAVY TFC CONGESTION, THE TWR TOLD ME TO INITIATE THE MISSED APCH 5 MI FROM THE RWY, AND MISSED APCH PROCS WOULD BE ISSUED AT THAT TIME. AT WHAT I BELIEVED TO BE THE 3 MI POINT, I TOLD MY STUDENT TO MAKE A MISSED APCH. TWR THEN INFORMED ME THAT I WAS MUCH CLOSER TO THE ARPT THAT 3 MI. LOOKING BACK AT THE SITUATION, I SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT THE MILEAGE FROM THE FAF TO THE MISSED APCH POINT WAS 4.5 MI, AND THAT THE MISSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED SOON AFTER PASSING THE FAF. I WAS, HOWEVER, CONCENTRATING ON THE NUMEROUS TFC ADVISORIES. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS MY UNFAMILIARITY WITH THE NEARBY, BUT SELDOM-USED, ARPT (SELDOM USED BY ME). I ALSO BELIEVE THE LCL CTLR COULD HAVE ISSUED A VERBAL COMMAND TO EXECUTE A MISSED APCH. THIS WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED SOME OF THE GUESSWORK.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.