Narrative:

I was giving night dual/pattern practice to a primary student and had been in the traffic pattern for runway 23 for approximately 1/2 hour. We were making all of the correct pattern calls on CTAF and were on the downwind leg for runway 23 when a learjet called themselves on 4 mi base for runway 5 (the opposite of runway 23). I promptly called us about to turn base for runway 23, and the lear asked us to extend our pattern. I felt that we had priority and shouldn't have to extend, so we continued our turn to final for runway 23. On final, I noticed that the lear was on final for runway 5. What I should have done was initiated a go around and break to the right. Instead, I continued the approach for a touch-and-go for runway 23. At this point, the lear and us both broke to the right and they proceeded to land on runway 23. After the lear landed, several comments were exchanged on the CTAF. I believe that this incident was occasioned by 2 factors: 1) my unwillingness to extend or change my pattern, and 2) the lear crew believed that their size and speed gave them the right to 'force' the small aircraft out of an established pattern. In retrospect, I wish that I had avoided the situation entirely by extending our pattern, or initiating a go around into an upwind. The attitude that I displayed for my student was completely unprofessional. However, I believe that the learjet crew also could have alleviated the problem by joining the pattern for runway 23 after positive radio contact had been made. In the future, I will avoid this situation entirely.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA38 ACFT IN TFC PATTERN WHEN ANOTHER ACFT CALLS ON CTAF RPTING 4 MI FINAL FOR OPPOSITE RWY. RPTR ADVISES THEY ARE LNDG OPPOSITE RWY AND LEAR PLT REQUESTS RPTR TO EXTEND THEIR PATTERN TO ALLOW THEM TO LAND. RPTR INSTRUCTOR BELIEVES THAT HIS ACFT HAS PRIORITY AND CONTINUES TO THE POINT BOTH ACFT HAVE TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION.

Narrative: I WAS GIVING NIGHT DUAL/PATTERN PRACTICE TO A PRIMARY STUDENT AND HAD BEEN IN THE TFC PATTERN FOR RWY 23 FOR APPROX 1/2 HR. WE WERE MAKING ALL OF THE CORRECT PATTERN CALLS ON CTAF AND WERE ON THE DOWNWIND LEG FOR RWY 23 WHEN A LEARJET CALLED THEMSELVES ON 4 MI BASE FOR RWY 5 (THE OPPOSITE OF RWY 23). I PROMPTLY CALLED US ABOUT TO TURN BASE FOR RWY 23, AND THE LEAR ASKED US TO EXTEND OUR PATTERN. I FELT THAT WE HAD PRIORITY AND SHOULDN'T HAVE TO EXTEND, SO WE CONTINUED OUR TURN TO FINAL FOR RWY 23. ON FINAL, I NOTICED THAT THE LEAR WAS ON FINAL FOR RWY 5. WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE WAS INITIATED A GAR AND BREAK TO THE R. INSTEAD, I CONTINUED THE APCH FOR A TOUCH-AND-GO FOR RWY 23. AT THIS POINT, THE LEAR AND US BOTH BROKE TO THE R AND THEY PROCEEDED TO LAND ON RWY 23. AFTER THE LEAR LANDED, SEVERAL COMMENTS WERE EXCHANGED ON THE CTAF. I BELIEVE THAT THIS INCIDENT WAS OCCASIONED BY 2 FACTORS: 1) MY UNWILLINGNESS TO EXTEND OR CHANGE MY PATTERN, AND 2) THE LEAR CREW BELIEVED THAT THEIR SIZE AND SPD GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO 'FORCE' THE SMALL ACFT OUT OF AN ESTABLISHED PATTERN. IN RETROSPECT, I WISH THAT I HAD AVOIDED THE SIT ENTIRELY BY EXTENDING OUR PATTERN, OR INITIATING A GAR INTO AN UPWIND. THE ATTITUDE THAT I DISPLAYED FOR MY STUDENT WAS COMPLETELY UNPROFESSIONAL. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT THE LEARJET CREW ALSO COULD HAVE ALLEVIATED THE PROB BY JOINING THE PATTERN FOR RWY 23 AFTER POSITIVE RADIO CONTACT HAD BEEN MADE. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL AVOID THIS SIT ENTIRELY.

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.