Narrative:

I was returning to my home base airport, MO49, with a student. I reported on 122.8 'washington traffic small aircraft X 3 mi southwest inbound for landing on 34. As we were nearing the airport on the southwest side of the river, we observed a no radio taildragger departing 34. I informed my student that I wanted him to follow the taildragger. We then continued northbound so that we could get in behind the taildragger. As we were continuing northbound to position ourselves behind the taildragger, we noticed a twin engine aircraft sbound at our 1 O'clock. I initiated a turn to the left, but quickly saw that the twin was no factor so I leveled out. From our position, the twin was on the other side of the river and it appeared to me to be in the l-hand traffic pattern at MO49. We entered an extended left downwind for 34. I reported entering downwind for 34 and that we were number 3 for landing behind the taildragger (1) and the twin (2). We landed as planned. As I was filling out my student's logbook, I was asked by an FAA inspector for my pilot's certificate. The inspector told me that we had passed off of his right wing by 300 ft. He then informed me that he would contact me in the future regarding this event. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states FAA sent a letter requesting him to come to the office and tell what happened. After his explanation, they said nothing further would develop. It seems rptrs boss sued this particular examiner and there is ongoing animosity toward his operation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT INSTRUCTOR WITH SPI IN TFC PATTERN ACCUSED OF CLOSE PROX BY FAA EXAMINER IN TWIN.

Narrative: I WAS RETURNING TO MY HOME BASE ARPT, MO49, WITH A STUDENT. I RPTED ON 122.8 'WASHINGTON TFC SMA X 3 MI SW INBOUND FOR LNDG ON 34. AS WE WERE NEARING THE ARPT ON THE SW SIDE OF THE RIVER, WE OBSERVED A NO RADIO TAILDRAGGER DEPARTING 34. I INFORMED MY STUDENT THAT I WANTED HIM TO FOLLOW THE TAILDRAGGER. WE THEN CONTINUED NBOUND SO THAT WE COULD GET IN BEHIND THE TAILDRAGGER. AS WE WERE CONTINUING NBOUND TO POS OURSELVES BEHIND THE TAILDRAGGER, WE NOTICED A TWIN ENG ACFT SBOUND AT OUR 1 O'CLOCK. I INITIATED A TURN TO THE L, BUT QUICKLY SAW THAT THE TWIN WAS NO FACTOR SO I LEVELED OUT. FROM OUR POS, THE TWIN WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER AND IT APPEARED TO ME TO BE IN THE L-HAND TFC PATTERN AT MO49. WE ENTERED AN EXTENDED L DOWNWIND FOR 34. I RPTED ENTERING DOWNWIND FOR 34 AND THAT WE WERE NUMBER 3 FOR LNDG BEHIND THE TAILDRAGGER (1) AND THE TWIN (2). WE LANDED AS PLANNED. AS I WAS FILLING OUT MY STUDENT'S LOGBOOK, I WAS ASKED BY AN FAA INSPECTOR FOR MY PLT'S CERTIFICATE. THE INSPECTOR TOLD ME THAT WE HAD PASSED OFF OF HIS R WING BY 300 FT. HE THEN INFORMED ME THAT HE WOULD CONTACT ME IN THE FUTURE REGARDING THIS EVENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES FAA SENT A LETTER REQUESTING HIM TO COME TO THE OFFICE AND TELL WHAT HAPPENED. AFTER HIS EXPLANATION, THEY SAID NOTHING FURTHER WOULD DEVELOP. IT SEEMS RPTRS BOSS SUED THIS PARTICULAR EXAMINER AND THERE IS ONGOING ANIMOSITY TOWARD HIS OP.

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.