Traffic conflict between a C152 and a dash 8 during an unauthorized touch-and-go performed on studen...

Attributes
ACN	539840
Time
Date	200203
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : psc.airport
State Reference	WA
Altitude	agl bound lower : 500 agl bound upper : 800
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : psc.tower
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Cessna 152
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	landing : touch and go
Route In Use	approach : visual approach : traffic pattern
Flight Plan	VFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : psc.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : instructor
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : multi engine
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 530 flight time type : 450
ASRS Report	539840
Person 2
Affiliation	other
Function	instruction : trainee
Events
Anomaly	airspace violation : entry conflict : airborne critical non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera
Resolutory Action	controller : separated traffic controller : issued new clearance
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	horizontal : 4500 vertical : 0
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Airspace Structure Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

It was a student pilot's first dual cross country flight into an unfamiliar airport. I was acting as CFI, but as he was performing well he made all communications with approach. Upon initial contact with chinook approach, the student stated that we were 'inbound to pasco.' we intended to do a touch-and-go, but I did not catch the fact that he omitted that from his call. We were cleared to enter a right base, landing #3 behind a seneca. I repeated the clearance to land, and on final I briefed my student to be aware of wake turbulence, and what glide path to use. We completed our touch-and-go. The controller, believing we were full stop traffic cleared a dash 8 commuter for takeoff. Upon reaching approximately 500-800 ft AGL the tower instructed us to make an immediate right crosswind. I took the controls from the student and complied. The dash 8 passed behind us at what my student estimated as 'about 1 mi' behind us. Tower informed that we were cleared to land, not for a touch-and-go. The problem started when I had assumed that the student had communicated his intention to touch and go. I was involved with explaining to him how to avoid wake turbulence and 'automatically' repeated the clearance to land -- once again, not noticing the difference between our intentions and the clearance. I guess this could be described as being in a 'set' frame of operations. I thanked the tower for their help and we proceeded on to course. It was a learning experience for both my student and myself, and I plan to emphasize clarity of communication in the future with all my students.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TFC CONFLICT BTWN A C152 AND A DASH 8 DURING AN UNAUTH TOUCH-AND-GO PERFORMED ON STUDENT PLT'S FIRST SUPERVISED XCOUNTRY FLT AT PSC, WA.

Narrative: IT WAS A STUDENT PLT'S FIRST DUAL XCOUNTRY FLT INTO AN UNFAMILIAR ARPT. I WAS ACTING AS CFI, BUT AS HE WAS PERFORMING WELL HE MADE ALL COMS WITH APCH. UPON INITIAL CONTACT WITH CHINOOK APCH, THE STUDENT STATED THAT WE WERE 'INBOUND TO PASCO.' WE INTENDED TO DO A TOUCH-AND-GO, BUT I DID NOT CATCH THE FACT THAT HE OMITTED THAT FROM HIS CALL. WE WERE CLRED TO ENTER A R BASE, LNDG #3 BEHIND A SENECA. I REPEATED THE CLRNC TO LAND, AND ON FINAL I BRIEFED MY STUDENT TO BE AWARE OF WAKE TURB, AND WHAT GLIDE PATH TO USE. WE COMPLETED OUR TOUCH-AND-GO. THE CTLR, BELIEVING WE WERE FULL STOP TFC CLRED A DASH 8 COMMUTER FOR TKOF. UPON REACHING APPROX 500-800 FT AGL THE TWR INSTRUCTED US TO MAKE AN IMMEDIATE R XWIND. I TOOK THE CTLS FROM THE STUDENT AND COMPLIED. THE DASH 8 PASSED BEHIND US AT WHAT MY STUDENT ESTIMATED AS 'ABOUT 1 MI' BEHIND US. TWR INFORMED THAT WE WERE CLRED TO LAND, NOT FOR A TOUCH-AND-GO. THE PROB STARTED WHEN I HAD ASSUMED THAT THE STUDENT HAD COMMUNICATED HIS INTENTION TO TOUCH AND GO. I WAS INVOLVED WITH EXPLAINING TO HIM HOW TO AVOID WAKE TURB AND 'AUTOMATICALLY' REPEATED THE CLRNC TO LAND -- ONCE AGAIN, NOT NOTICING THE DIFFERENCE BTWN OUR INTENTIONS AND THE CLRNC. I GUESS THIS COULD BE DESCRIBED AS BEING IN A 'SET' FRAME OF OPS. I THANKED THE TWR FOR THEIR HELP AND WE PROCEEDED ON TO COURSE. IT WAS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR BOTH MY STUDENT AND MYSELF, AND I PLAN TO EMPHASIZE CLARITY OF COM IN THE FUTURE WITH ALL MY STUDENTS.

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.

Traffic conflict between a C152 and a dash 8 during an unauthorized touch-and-go performed on student pilot's first supervised cross country flight at psc, wa.