Unauthorized takeoff touch and go when clearance acknowledged was for clearance landing.

Attributes
ACN	186065
Time
Date	199108
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sdl
State Reference	AZ
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 400
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sdl
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Small Aircraft, Low Wing, 2 Eng, Retractable Gear
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff landing other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 775 flight time type : 35
ASRS Report	186065
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : private
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe incursion : runway non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

As multi-engine instructor, failed student's engine on crosswind leg. Student followed emergency procedure and then called tower, 'simulated engine failure to landing'. (We were in the pattern doing touch and goes at the time.) airplane was flying on downwind at 400 ft AGL with the student working hard to maintain vyse. Downwind turning base tower clears us to land. Student repeats back clearance to land. All this time our intention was to do a touch and go. My student was so busy with his airplane and I was busy watching him, that both of us missed our mistake. Tower clears us to land and we did a touch and go. The tower did not allow adequate spacing for us and a previously landing aircraft. Needless to say, tower was not happy. Instructors must listen to their student's radio conversations carefully while they teach. When practicing simulated engine failures in the pattern, it is best to request the option.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNAUTHORIZED TKOF TOUCH AND GO WHEN CLRNC ACKNOWLEDGED WAS FOR CLRNC LNDG.

Narrative: AS MULTI-ENG INSTRUCTOR, FAILED STUDENT'S ENG ON XWIND LEG. STUDENT FOLLOWED EMER PROC AND THEN CALLED TWR, 'SIMULATED ENG FAILURE TO LNDG'. (WE WERE IN THE PATTERN DOING TOUCH AND GOES AT THE TIME.) AIRPLANE WAS FLYING ON DOWNWIND AT 400 FT AGL WITH THE STUDENT WORKING HARD TO MAINTAIN VYSE. DOWNWIND TURNING BASE TWR CLRS US TO LAND. STUDENT REPEATS BACK CLRNC TO LAND. ALL THIS TIME OUR INTENTION WAS TO DO A TOUCH AND GO. MY STUDENT WAS SO BUSY WITH HIS AIRPLANE AND I WAS BUSY WATCHING HIM, THAT BOTH OF US MISSED OUR MISTAKE. TWR CLRS US TO LAND AND WE DID A TOUCH AND GO. THE TWR DID NOT ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACING FOR US AND A PREVIOUSLY LNDG ACFT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, TWR WAS NOT HAPPY. INSTRUCTORS MUST LISTEN TO THEIR STUDENT'S RADIO CONVERSATIONS CAREFULLY WHILE THEY TEACH. WHEN PRACTICING SIMULATED ENG FAILURES IN THE PATTERN, IT IS BEST TO REQUEST THE OPTION.

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.