Narrative:

Was on the VOR 30 practice approach (still under IFR clearance) with student; tower issued missed instructions to go missed at the approach end. They then issued more to stay below 1000 feet to avoid traffic in the pattern. 3/4 mile out; tower issued traffic alerts for two separate aircraft to call in sight; I had already had one in sight in a downwind leg and the other came out from under the glare we had with the sun hitting us. At which point I took controls from the student and proceeded with a sharp turn away from the airport and southeast bound (almost a full 180). As I started that turn; tower told us to go missed immediately and asked what our altitude was. I responded with '800 and flying below the traffic.' tower then said; 'if you turned when I had told you wouldn't of had a traffic alert. Contact socal approach.' 'heading out; over to approach.'at the time I took control we were opposite direction; 200 feet below in the middle of cleaning our aircraft up from the approach. We had only been given up to the approach end to complete our missed; and once we got there we had on coming traffic. I had to take control from the student; still operating under IFR my student did not know what was going on and had she continued with normal missed procedures would have turned us into the oncoming and may have caused a collision. Tower none the less acted as if it was our fault when they had not routed all traffic under their airspace correctly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A flight instructor and student flying a practice VOR RWY 30 approach at LGB suffered an NMAC with pattern traffic when the transmission and receipt/execution of a go-around clearance from ATC was not accomplished in a timely fashion.

Narrative: Was on the VOR 30 practice approach (still under IFR clearance) with student; tower issued missed instructions to go missed at the approach end. They then issued more to stay below 1000 feet to avoid traffic in the pattern. 3/4 mile out; tower issued traffic alerts for two separate aircraft to call in sight; I had already had one in sight in a downwind leg and the other came out from under the glare we had with the sun hitting us. At which point I took controls from the student and proceeded with a sharp turn away from the airport and southeast bound (almost a full 180). As I started that turn; tower told us to go missed immediately and asked what our altitude was. I responded with '800 and flying below the traffic.' Tower then said; 'If you turned when I had told you wouldn't of had a traffic alert. Contact SoCal approach.' 'Heading out; over to approach.'At the time I took control we were opposite direction; 200 feet below in the middle of cleaning our aircraft up from the approach. We had only been given up to the approach end to complete our missed; and once we got there we had on coming traffic. I had to take control from the student; still operating under IFR my student did not know what was going on and had she continued with normal missed procedures would have turned us into the oncoming and may have caused a collision. Tower none the less acted as if it was our fault when they had not routed all traffic under their airspace correctly.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.