INSTRUCTOR WITH STUDENT BACK TAXIES ON RWY (NO TXWY) AND IS INFORMED BY UNICOM OF AN ACFT TURNING ONTO FINAL. HE TAXIED ONTO GRASS NEXT TO RWY WHICH IS OFTEN USED FOR LNDG PRACTICE AND THE SECOND ACFT LANDS.

Narrative

WHILE HOLDING SHORT OF THE RWY (SINGLE 4000 FT) ON THE TXWY. MY STUDENT AND I HEARD AN INDISTINCT TRANSMISSION ON THE ACFT RADIO NEITHER OF US MADE OUT WHAT IT WAS. I INSTRUCTED THE STUDENT TO VISUALLY CLR THE APCH PATH WHICH HE DID. WE RADIOED THAT WE WERE BACK TAXING ON RWY 23 THEN TAXIED ON TO THE ACTIVE. JUST AS WE WERE ON THE RWY; UNICOM (IN THE FBO) ADVISED THERE WAS AN ACFT ON FINAL. I LOOKED AND SAW THE T-34 ON A CLOSE IN L BASE TO FINAL. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK CONTROL OF OUR ACFT AND TAXIED ONTO THE GRASS. THE T-34 LANDED AND TAXIED OFF THE TXWY WE HAD JUST BEEN ON. WE NEVER SAW THE T-34 BECAUSE HE MADE A LOW LEFT BASE AND WAS OBSCURED BY THE TREES OFF THE L SIDE OF THE RWY. I DON'T BELIEVE WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HEAR HIM OR SEE HIM UNTIL HE WAS ON SHORT FINAL. A FAIRLY BUSY UNICOM FREQUENCY ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO MY NOT RECOGNIZING A BASE TO FINAL CALL ALSO PLAYED A PART. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR WAS POSITIVE THAT THE MAIN PROB WAS THE LOW APCH AND CLOSE PATTERN OF THE SECOND ACFT. HE WAS OBSCURED BY THE TREES. THE QUALITY OF HIS RADIO COM WAS VERY GARBLED AND NOT UNDERSTANDABLE. HE FEEL THE TREES SHOULD BE CUT. BUT ALSO THAT THE STANDARD PATTERN PROCS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. HE FELT HIS ACTION WAS NOT DANGEROUS AS THE GRASS IS OFTEN USED FOR LNDGS AND IS VERY SUITABLE FOR ACFT MOVEMENT. HE FELT THERE WAS NOT REAL DANGER AS THE OTHER ACFT WOULD HAVE SEEN HIS ACFT ON THE RWY. THE TREES ARE LOCATED ON PVT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE ARPT; NOT ON THE ARPT PROPERTY.