Unauthorized landing touch-and-go while training in progress. Practice instrument approach.

Attributes
ACN	300557
Time
Date	199503
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : ccr
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : cfi pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 80 flight time total : 870 flight time type : 20
ASRS Report	300557
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot instruction : trainee
Qualification	pilot : private
Events
Anomaly	incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : far non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Our first approach was the VOR runway 19R at concord. We executed the missed approach and proceeded to execute the NDB runway 19R at ccr. When handed off from travis approach to concord we advised concord tower that we were with him. Tower then asked 'how will this approach terminate' and to 'report the NDB.' the student said that we would like to do a touch- and-go and make a straight-out departure and that we were just coming upon the NDB. We continued the approach and saw the plane that tower had cleared for takeoff. We did not feel that there was any traffic conflict and that tower had given more than enough separation. We made a touch-and-go and on climb out tower had told us that we did not report the final approach fix and that we were not cleared for a touch-and-go. Contributing factors: because I was involved with showing the student (I had only flown with him once before) how to track and execute an NDB approach I was not fully paying attention to the communications. I had asked the student if we were cleared to land and he said 'yes.' I assumed that because the student reported 'coming up on the NDB' that no additional report at the final approach fix was needed. It was an early morning flight and there was hardly any other traffic. Because of this, I was not fully paying attention to the communications because I assumed that it would not be a problem for approach/tower to accommodate us. Correction actions: I should not have taken a new student's word on a clearance given. I should have checked with tower if I was not sure. I should not have become so caught up in the teaching aspect that I forgot to fly the aircraft and confirm all communications. I should not have assumed that tower understood that we were at the NDB when we said 'coming up on.' from now on, I will report over the final approach fix even if it is redundant.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNAUTH LNDG TOUCH-AND-GO WHILE TRAINING IN PROGRESS. PRACTICE INST APCH.

Narrative: OUR FIRST APCH WAS THE VOR RWY 19R AT CONCORD. WE EXECUTED THE MISSED APCH AND PROCEEDED TO EXECUTE THE NDB RWY 19R AT CCR. WHEN HANDED OFF FROM TRAVIS APCH TO CONCORD WE ADVISED CONCORD TWR THAT WE WERE WITH HIM. TWR THEN ASKED 'HOW WILL THIS APCH TERMINATE' AND TO 'RPT THE NDB.' THE STUDENT SAID THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO A TOUCH- AND-GO AND MAKE A STRAIGHT-OUT DEP AND THAT WE WERE JUST COMING UPON THE NDB. WE CONTINUED THE APCH AND SAW THE PLANE THAT TWR HAD CLRED FOR TKOF. WE DID NOT FEEL THAT THERE WAS ANY TFC CONFLICT AND THAT TWR HAD GIVEN MORE THAN ENOUGH SEPARATION. WE MADE A TOUCH-AND-GO AND ON CLBOUT TWR HAD TOLD US THAT WE DID NOT RPT THE FINAL APCH FIX AND THAT WE WERE NOT CLRED FOR A TOUCH-AND-GO. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: BECAUSE I WAS INVOLVED WITH SHOWING THE STUDENT (I HAD ONLY FLOWN WITH HIM ONCE BEFORE) HOW TO TRACK AND EXECUTE AN NDB APCH I WAS NOT FULLY PAYING ATTN TO THE COMS. I HAD ASKED THE STUDENT IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND AND HE SAID 'YES.' I ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE THE STUDENT RPTED 'COMING UP ON THE NDB' THAT NO ADDITIONAL RPT AT THE FINAL APCH FIX WAS NEEDED. IT WAS AN EARLY MORNING FLT AND THERE WAS HARDLY ANY OTHER TFC. BECAUSE OF THIS, I WAS NOT FULLY PAYING ATTN TO THE COMS BECAUSE I ASSUMED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A PROB FOR APCH/TWR TO ACCOMMODATE US. CORRECTION ACTIONS: I SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A NEW STUDENT'S WORD ON A CLRNC GIVEN. I SHOULD HAVE CHKED WITH TWR IF I WAS NOT SURE. I SHOULD NOT HAVE BECOME SO CAUGHT UP IN THE TEACHING ASPECT THAT I FORGOT TO FLY THE ACFT AND CONFIRM ALL COMS. I SHOULD NOT HAVE ASSUMED THAT TWR UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WERE AT THE NDB WHEN WE SAID 'COMING UP ON.' FROM NOW ON, I WILL RPT OVER THE FINAL APCH FIX EVEN IF IT IS REDUNDANT.

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.