ISTR WITH 2 MULTI ENG STUDENTS ABOARD HAS NMAC WITH SMT.

Narrative

THE PURPOSE OF THE MISSION WAS TO TRAIN THE STUDENTS ON MAX PERFORMANCE APCHS AND LNDGS. WE CONTACTED FT PIERCE TWR AND WERE CLRED FOR A STRAIGHT IN APCH TO RWY 27. THE TWR INSTRUCTED US TO RPT THE SHORELINE ON FINAL. I WAS FLYING THE AIRPLANE; AND HAD REQUESTED RWY 14 SO I COULD DEMONSTRATE A FULL PATTERN. THE ATIS HAD ADVERTISED RWY 14 WAS AVAILABLE; BUT THE TWR DID SAY TO CONTINUE FOR RWY 27. MYSELF; THE STUDENT IN THE L FRONT SEAT; AND A STUDENT OBSERVER IN THE BACK; WERE MONITORING TFC AND TWR XMISSIONS. I WAS HEARING THE TWR TRYING TO GIVE INSTRUCTIONS TO AN ACFT THAT APPARENTLY HAD BEEN CIRCLING 3 MI N OF THE FIELD AND HAD WANTED A LNDG CLRNC. THE PLT OF THAT ACFT SPOKE HEAVILY ACCENTED ENGLISH AND SEEMED TO HAVE TROUBLE COMPREHENDING THE TWR'S INSTRUCTION. AS WE WERE ON APCH I WAS EXPLAINING THE LNDG PROC TO THE STUDENT AS I CONTINUED FLYING. THE TWR ASKED IF WE HAD AN SMT ON FINAL THAT THE CTLR SAID HAD CUT IN FRONT OF US. ALSO THE CTLR KEPT ASKING THE SMT IF HE HAD US IN SIGHT. THAT PLT SAID HE DID NOT. HE APPARENTLY WAS ON A R BASE TO 27. THE TWR TOLD HIM REPEATEDLY TO TURN TO A DOWNWIND. AS WE CONTINUED THE APCH WE (MYSELF AND CREW) NOTICED THE SMT APCHING RAPIDLY TOWARDS OUR POS; CONVERGING FROM OUR R AT OUR ALT. I KEPT WATCHING HIM FOR HIS INTENTIONS. AS HE CONVERGED WITHOUT TURNING AWAY AND IT BECAME OBVIOUS WE MIGHT COLLIDE I REDUCED PWR AND DIVED. THE SMT PASSED OVERHEAD. THE STUDENTS; WHO ARE FROM ITALY; ESTIMATED HE PASSED OVER US BY 20 METERS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE WE HAD 50 FT SEPARATION. I CONTINUED FLYING AND DEMONSTRATING. IN THE MEANTIME THE TWR INSTRUCTED THE SMT TO SET UP FOR RWY 32. ONCE AGAIN; THE PLT APPARENTLY DID NOT COMPREHEND; BECAUSE HE SET UP BEHIND US FOR RWY 27. THE TWR ADVISED HIM HE WAS APCHING RAPIDLY BEHIND US. WE WERE ON VERY SHORT FINAL; CLRED FOR TOUCH AND GO; AND I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HIS POS. MY DEMONSTRATION WENT AWRY BUT I COMPLETED THE LNDG SAFELY. THE TWR DID NOT CLR THE SMT; FINALLY; TO LAND ON 27. THIS EVENT FRIGHTENED ME. NOT ONLY DID I HAVE TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AFTER THE SMT CONVERGED FROM US ABEAM; BUT THE SAME ACFT APCHED OUR REAR RAPIDLY. THE SECOND SCENARIO WAS THE MORE FRIGHTENING. IN THE FIRST SCENARIO I HAD THE ACFT IN SIGHT AND COULD EVADE. IN THE SECOND I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HIS POS WAS AND REALLY FELT I HAD NO CTL OVER THE SITUATION EXCEPT LAND THE AIRPLANE. THE 2 STUDENTS I WAS FLYING WITH THIS DAY ARE CONTRACT AIRLINE STUDENTS AT MY SCHOOL. THEY HAVE HAD EXTENSIVE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING AND GENERALLY COMPREHEND THE LANGUAGE WELL. ENGLISH COMPREHENSION IS A CONCERN IN OUR PROGRAM. THE SMT PLT APPARENTLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH WELL AND ALSO MAY HAVE BEEN DISORIENTED. MAYBE AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEST SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE UNITED STATES FOR PLTS WHO SPEAK ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE -- WHICH MIGHT HAVE HELPED AVOID THIS SITUATION.