INSTRUCTOR PLT OF A C152 OBSERVED AN ERCOUPE LNDG ON THE SAME RWY ON WHICH HE WAS BACK-TAXIING; AFTER LNDG AT A NON TWR ARPT. HE TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT AND WENT OFF THE SIDE INTO THE WEEDS TO ALLOW ROOM FOR THE ERCOUPE TO PASS. IN POSTFLT DISCUSSION; THE ERCOUPE PLT SAID THAT HE BELIEVED THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT ROOM TO STOP BEFORE REACHING THE C152 ON THE RWY AND DID NOT WANT TO ATTEMPT A GAR ON SUCH A HOT DAY.

Narrative

MY STUDENT AND I WERE ON A TRAINING FLT TO ANGWIN ARPT (2O3). WE CALLED ON THE CTAF STATING POS; ALT; AND INTENTIONS TO OVERFLY THE ARPT. NO RESPONSE FROM UNICOM; SO WE OVERFLEW AND DETERMINED THAT RWY 16 WAS THE FAVORED RWY. ENTERED DOWNWIND; TURNED BASE; FINAL. STUDENT PERFORMED A SHORT FIELD LNDG TO DO A 180 DEG TURN AND BACK-TAXI ON RWY 16 SO WE COULD SAVE TIME (ANGWIN HAS NO TXWYS). WHEN WE COMPLETED THE 180 DEG TURN (WE WERE APPROX 1000 FT DOWN THE RWY); I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE AN ERCOUPE XING THE RWY 16 THRESHOLD IN THE FLARE. I TOOK CTL OF THE AIRPLANE FROM MY STUDENT AND TAXIED INTO THE WEEDS TO AVOID COLLISION WITH THE OTHER AIRPLANE. I QUESTIONED THE PLT ABOUT WHETHER HE SAW US. HE SAID HE HAD US IN SIGHT. HE ARGUED THAT HIS AIRPLANE COULD HAVE EASILY STOPPED IF HE HAD TO AND ALSO THAT HE DIDN'T WANT TO GAR BECAUSE OF THE HOT DAY (95 DEGS F) AND HIS 100 HP ENG NOT BEING POWERFUL ENOUGH TO ALLOW HIS AIRPLANE TO CLB. MY ARGUMENT IS SIMPLY IF HE DIDN'T HAVE STOPPING CAPABILITY; HE WOULD HAVE HIT US. ALSO; A POORLY INITIATED GAR COULD'VE ALSO RESULTED IN A COLLISION.