Narrative:

The problem was continued VFR into deteriorating (MVFR) conditions, lack of visibility and heavy controller workload. As instructed by the tower we were holding over a ground chkpoint just south of the localizer course and on the edge of class D for our sequence for landing. The controller told us to 'turn base for the landing runway 24 and follow traffic on final, #2 cleared to land.' we had traffic in sight and proceeded inbound. #3 aircraft was instructed to follow us but reported us 'not in sight.' the controller canceled our landing sequence and instructed us to make an immediate left turn back to our 'holding area.' we were then instructed to follow aircraft #3. I did not see aircraft #3 until we turned back towards the airport to follow him. My student (student pilot) was flying and communicating. I took over the communication when it seemed the controller would be unable (due to workload) to speak slower. The communications were also very 'non-normal' at this point (special instructions, immediate turns towards landmarks only known to lcls etc). The tower controller requested (via telephone) that I take over communications sooner if my student was having difficulty with it. I feel that I took over at the appropriate moment, before we were in the congested area. Also, the controller had not given any indication that they were busy with other duties, the frequency was not yet congested. I also feel that my student should not have continued to this airport, but should have diverted to a good VFR alternate. We talked about this also.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR WITH SPI FLYING ENCOUNTERS DETERIORATING WX. ON SVFR HAS CLOSE PROX WITH SECOND ACFT ON APCH.

Narrative: THE PROB WAS CONTINUED VFR INTO DETERIORATING (MVFR) CONDITIONS, LACK OF VISIBILITY AND HVY CTLR WORKLOAD. AS INSTRUCTED BY THE TWR WE WERE HOLDING OVER A GND CHKPOINT JUST S OF THE LOC COURSE AND ON THE EDGE OF CLASS D FOR OUR SEQUENCE FOR LNDG. THE CTLR TOLD US TO 'TURN BASE FOR THE LNDG RWY 24 AND FOLLOW TFC ON FINAL, #2 CLRED TO LAND.' WE HAD TFC IN SIGHT AND PROCEEDED INBOUND. #3 ACFT WAS INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW US BUT RPTED US 'NOT IN SIGHT.' THE CTLR CANCELED OUR LNDG SEQUENCE AND INSTRUCTED US TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE L TURN BACK TO OUR 'HOLDING AREA.' WE WERE THEN INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW ACFT #3. I DID NOT SEE ACFT #3 UNTIL WE TURNED BACK TOWARDS THE ARPT TO FOLLOW HIM. MY STUDENT (STUDENT PLT) WAS FLYING AND COMMUNICATING. I TOOK OVER THE COM WHEN IT SEEMED THE CTLR WOULD BE UNABLE (DUE TO WORKLOAD) TO SPEAK SLOWER. THE COMS WERE ALSO VERY 'NON-NORMAL' AT THIS POINT (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS, IMMEDIATE TURNS TOWARDS LANDMARKS ONLY KNOWN TO LCLS ETC). THE TWR CTLR REQUESTED (VIA TELEPHONE) THAT I TAKE OVER COMS SOONER IF MY STUDENT WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH IT. I FEEL THAT I TOOK OVER AT THE APPROPRIATE MOMENT, BEFORE WE WERE IN THE CONGESTED AREA. ALSO, THE CTLR HAD NOT GIVEN ANY INDICATION THAT THEY WERE BUSY WITH OTHER DUTIES, THE FREQ WAS NOT YET CONGESTED. I ALSO FEEL THAT MY STUDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTINUED TO THIS ARPT, BUT SHOULD HAVE DIVERTED TO A GOOD VFR ALTERNATE. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ALSO.

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.