Narrative:

This situation arose while doing a recurrency chkout at aviation flight school. They require .3 hours every 3 months to be able to rent their airplanes. On the third of 3 patterns, with an instructor in the right seat, I decided to pull the power and do a power off landing from downwind. There was an aircraft on base in front of us, but I thought that due to the spacing and the slow speed of our C-152, the aircraft in front would easily be off the runway by the time we got there. Neither the CFI nor I heard that aircraft's intentions. We continued to fly a close pattern, and if the aircraft in front of us had made a touch and go or exited the runway, everything would have been fine, but instead it did a stop-and-go about 1000 ft down the 5000 ft runway. When I became clear that the aircraft was still going to be on the runway when we got there (we were about 20 ft AGL). I initiated a go around, at which time the instructor pulled the power and landed the airplane. The stop-and-go aircraft had just broken ground on this takeoff when we touched down. At no time was anyone in any danger, and the go around would have been perfectly safe: climbing to the right of the runway it would have been easy to maintain visual separation and just re- enter the pattern behind the other, faster aircraft. In retrospect, it was not a particularly good time to fly a close pattern, but my level of awareness throughout the flight, and in particular the situation as it was developing, was high. But this situation recalls the issues of the late 70's and early 80's when the FAA and the CFI's were trying to decide who is pilot of command in an aircraft with a CFI and a qualified pilot on board. My feeling is that I relinquished PIC at the moment the CFI took over control of the airplane. I am also very confident that I would have safely extricated myself from this situation with a go around. The CFI, who is fairly young, with mid to low time, had just come back from 1 flight and had another flight waiting. He just seemed more interested in getting on the ground and out of the airplane. It is important to note again that no one was in any danger. This was a difference of opinion on how to handle an uncommon situation: following an aircraft in the pattern doing an unexpected stop-and-go. But my real question regarding the issue here is who is in charge of the airplane. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: analyst called to advise reporter that the PIC role should be decided on ahead of time when 2 certified pilots are in the cockpit. He indicated that the CFI was one who was just building time to go to the majors and was totally bored with this assignment. Reporter felt his decision to go around was a better one than the CFI to land on an occupied runway. He is right. The CFI is there to evaluate, not to take over the aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT BEGINS A GAR, INSTRUCTOR TAKES CTLS AND LANDS WITH ACFT ON RWY.

Narrative: THIS SIT AROSE WHILE DOING A RECURRENCY CHKOUT AT AVIATION FLT SCHOOL. THEY REQUIRE .3 HRS EVERY 3 MONTHS TO BE ABLE TO RENT THEIR AIRPLANES. ON THE THIRD OF 3 PATTERNS, WITH AN INSTRUCTOR IN THE R SEAT, I DECIDED TO PULL THE PWR AND DO A PWR OFF LNDG FROM DOWNWIND. THERE WAS AN ACFT ON BASE IN FRONT OF US, BUT I THOUGHT THAT DUE TO THE SPACING AND THE SLOW SPD OF OUR C-152, THE ACFT IN FRONT WOULD EASILY BE OFF THE RWY BY THE TIME WE GOT THERE. NEITHER THE CFI NOR I HEARD THAT ACFT'S INTENTIONS. WE CONTINUED TO FLY A CLOSE PATTERN, AND IF THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US HAD MADE A TOUCH AND GO OR EXITED THE RWY, EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE, BUT INSTEAD IT DID A STOP-AND-GO ABOUT 1000 FT DOWN THE 5000 FT RWY. WHEN I BECAME CLR THAT THE ACFT WAS STILL GOING TO BE ON THE RWY WHEN WE GOT THERE (WE WERE ABOUT 20 FT AGL). I INITIATED A GAR, AT WHICH TIME THE INSTRUCTOR PULLED THE PWR AND LANDED THE AIRPLANE. THE STOP-AND-GO ACFT HAD JUST BROKEN GND ON THIS TKOF WHEN WE TOUCHED DOWN. AT NO TIME WAS ANYONE IN ANY DANGER, AND THE GAR WOULD HAVE BEEN PERFECTLY SAFE: CLBING TO THE R OF THE RWY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASY TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION AND JUST RE- ENTER THE PATTERN BEHIND THE OTHER, FASTER ACFT. IN RETROSPECT, IT WAS NOT A PARTICULARLY GOOD TIME TO FLY A CLOSE PATTERN, BUT MY LEVEL OF AWARENESS THROUGHOUT THE FLT, AND IN PARTICULAR THE SIT AS IT WAS DEVELOPING, WAS HIGH. BUT THIS SIT RECALLS THE ISSUES OF THE LATE 70'S AND EARLY 80'S WHEN THE FAA AND THE CFI'S WERE TRYING TO DECIDE WHO IS PLT OF COMMAND IN AN ACFT WITH A CFI AND A QUALIFIED PLT ON BOARD. MY FEELING IS THAT I RELINQUISHED PIC AT THE MOMENT THE CFI TOOK OVER CTL OF THE AIRPLANE. I AM ALSO VERY CONFIDENT THAT I WOULD HAVE SAFELY EXTRICATED MYSELF FROM THIS SIT WITH A GAR. THE CFI, WHO IS FAIRLY YOUNG, WITH MID TO LOW TIME, HAD JUST COME BACK FROM 1 FLT AND HAD ANOTHER FLT WAITING. HE JUST SEEMED MORE INTERESTED IN GETTING ON THE GND AND OUT OF THE AIRPLANE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AGAIN THAT NO ONE WAS IN ANY DANGER. THIS WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON HOW TO HANDLE AN UNCOMMON SIT: FOLLOWING AN ACFT IN THE PATTERN DOING AN UNEXPECTED STOP-AND-GO. BUT MY REAL QUESTION REGARDING THE ISSUE HERE IS WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE AIRPLANE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: ANALYST CALLED TO ADVISE RPTR THAT THE PIC ROLE SHOULD BE DECIDED ON AHEAD OF TIME WHEN 2 CERTIFIED PLTS ARE IN THE COCKPIT. HE INDICATED THAT THE CFI WAS ONE WHO WAS JUST BUILDING TIME TO GO TO THE MAJORS AND WAS TOTALLY BORED WITH THIS ASSIGNMENT. RPTR FELT HIS DECISION TO GAR WAS A BETTER ONE THAN THE CFI TO LAND ON AN OCCUPIED RWY. HE IS RIGHT. THE CFI IS THERE TO EVALUATE, NOT TO TAKE OVER THE ACFT.

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.