Cessna 400
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 100; Flight Crew Total 4700; Flight Crew Type 1500
Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Conflict NMAC
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airport; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
I was flying right seat as a [Military] Auxiliary Flight Examiner in my aircraft a Columbia 400. We were cleared to land by Tower as Number 3. Number 2 aircraft was a Tencam with a student pilot. We believe that there was an instructor on board. When we were about 1;000 FT from the threshold we noted the Tencam at about 50-70 FT above the runway. The aircraft appeared to be going around. Our intention was to land which would have provided adequate separation. Instead the pilot dove for the runway and then climbed to about 30 FT blocking us from landing and blocking our exit to go around. Tower cleared us to fly over the canal to the left. That exit was blocked by a crane. We were able to fly around the crane come around on left downwind and land. Contributing factors were: (1) very tight airspace due to buildings and a crane; (2) the disparity in approach speed of the two aircraft; (3) the unexpected (and bizarre) maneuver by the student pilot; (4) the inattention of the Tower (no go around was transmitted); (4) the failure of my examinee to recognize the rapid convergence of the two aircraft and (5) my failure as examiner not to recognize the developing hazard.
The pilot examiner of a Columbia 400 took evasive action on short final when the aircraft in front of them dove for the runway during an assumed go-around. They were restricted by a crane in the area; but were able to maneuver around it and return for a safe landing.