Narrative:

We were working lnk approach control, approximately 15 NM ene of the airport. I was the PF and the copilot was handling communications. Our last clearance was a 250 degree heading, maintain 6000'. The WX was cavu and the airport had been in view for quite some time. I was anticipating a visibility approach and I asked the copilot to report the runway in sight. He initiated the report and we received a reply that we were cleared for the visibility and cleared to land. We both noted that the clearance to land seemed a little unusual at this time, but since this occurs sometimes at low vol towers we didn't question the clearance. We were aware of no other traffic and I began a gentle left turn and descent toward the approach end of 17R. About 2 mi out on final, the tower asked if we were on the frequency. The copilot replied affirmative, and the tower issued what we thought to be a second clearance to land. The copilot and I exchanged glances, but at this time our primary concern was the possibility of wind shear, as the airport was experiencing winds from 210 degrees at velocities as high as 25 KTS. After landing, the tower asked if we had experienced communications problems. We were both puzzled at this request and replied that we didn't think that we had. We were then advised that approach control had lost contact with us and had advised the tower of this. Upon arrival I contacted the approach facility by phone, and was advised that they had not issued an approach clearance. They said that they had issued a clearance to 3000', 'report airport in sight,' to which they had received no reply from us. I was puzzled by this, as both the copilot and I were quite sure that we had been issued both the visibility and landing clearance, but had not received the clearance to 3000'. We may well have been monitoring the tower frequency when this last clearance was issued by approach. The supervisor also indicated that this facility does not issue landing clrncs on the approach frequency. A warning of phantom ATC calls had been posted by my company 2 days earlier for the ord, mke and moline areas. While by no means certain that this occurred, I can't help buy wonder if such a phantom call in the lnk area might not explain what we perceived to be our first approach and landing clearance. This of course would explain our monitoring of tower frequency and loss of contact with approach control before they issued the clearance to 3000'. I am very conscientious about communications procedures, there was little radio traffic, and our cockpit represented a combination of almost 40 yrs of IFR experience. I would never leave my cleared altitude and heading unless I was certain of a clearance, and neither the copilot nor I felt that there was any question as to our clearance. Upon considerable reflection, we both feel that we were comfortable with our decision to begin the visibility approach in light of what we heard over the radio. In any case, I do not believe that safety was at issue in this case, as traffic was almost nonexistent, the visibility was perfect, and we did have a clearance from the tower to land.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG BEGINS VISUAL APCH PRIOR TO RECEIVING CLRNC TO DO SO.

Narrative: WE WERE WORKING LNK APCH CTL, APPROX 15 NM ENE OF THE ARPT. I WAS THE PF AND THE COPLT WAS HANDLING COMS. OUR LAST CLRNC WAS A 250 DEG HDG, MAINTAIN 6000'. THE WX WAS CAVU AND THE ARPT HAD BEEN IN VIEW FOR QUITE SOME TIME. I WAS ANTICIPATING A VIS APCH AND I ASKED THE COPLT TO RPT THE RWY IN SIGHT. HE INITIATED THE RPT AND WE RECEIVED A REPLY THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VIS AND CLRED TO LAND. WE BOTH NOTED THAT THE CLRNC TO LAND SEEMED A LITTLE UNUSUAL AT THIS TIME, BUT SINCE THIS OCCURS SOMETIMES AT LOW VOL TWRS WE DIDN'T QUESTION THE CLRNC. WE WERE AWARE OF NO OTHER TFC AND I BEGAN A GENTLE LEFT TURN AND DSNT TOWARD THE APCH END OF 17R. ABOUT 2 MI OUT ON FINAL, THE TWR ASKED IF WE WERE ON THE FREQ. THE COPLT REPLIED AFFIRMATIVE, AND THE TWR ISSUED WHAT WE THOUGHT TO BE A SECOND CLRNC TO LAND. THE COPLT AND I EXCHANGED GLANCES, BUT AT THIS TIME OUR PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THE POSSIBILITY OF WIND SHEAR, AS THE ARPT WAS EXPERIENCING WINDS FROM 210 DEGS AT VELOCITIES AS HIGH AS 25 KTS. AFTER LNDG, THE TWR ASKED IF WE HAD EXPERIENCED COMS PROBS. WE WERE BOTH PUZZLED AT THIS REQUEST AND REPLIED THAT WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WE HAD. WE WERE THEN ADVISED THAT APCH CTL HAD LOST CONTACT WITH US AND HAD ADVISED THE TWR OF THIS. UPON ARR I CONTACTED THE APCH FAC BY PHONE, AND WAS ADVISED THAT THEY HAD NOT ISSUED AN APCH CLRNC. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAD ISSUED A CLRNC TO 3000', 'RPT ARPT IN SIGHT,' TO WHICH THEY HAD RECEIVED NO REPLY FROM US. I WAS PUZZLED BY THIS, AS BOTH THE COPLT AND I WERE QUITE SURE THAT WE HAD BEEN ISSUED BOTH THE VIS AND LNDG CLRNC, BUT HAD NOT RECEIVED THE CLRNC TO 3000'. WE MAY WELL HAVE BEEN MONITORING THE TWR FREQ WHEN THIS LAST CLRNC WAS ISSUED BY APCH. THE SUPVR ALSO INDICATED THAT THIS FAC DOES NOT ISSUE LNDG CLRNCS ON THE APCH FREQ. A WARNING OF PHANTOM ATC CALLS HAD BEEN POSTED BY MY COMPANY 2 DAYS EARLIER FOR THE ORD, MKE AND MOLINE AREAS. WHILE BY NO MEANS CERTAIN THAT THIS OCCURRED, I CAN'T HELP BUY WONDER IF SUCH A PHANTOM CALL IN THE LNK AREA MIGHT NOT EXPLAIN WHAT WE PERCEIVED TO BE OUR FIRST APCH AND LNDG CLRNC. THIS OF COURSE WOULD EXPLAIN OUR MONITORING OF TWR FREQ AND LOSS OF CONTACT WITH APCH CTL BEFORE THEY ISSUED THE CLRNC TO 3000'. I AM VERY CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT COMS PROCS, THERE WAS LITTLE RADIO TFC, AND OUR COCKPIT REPRESENTED A COMBINATION OF ALMOST 40 YRS OF IFR EXPERIENCE. I WOULD NEVER LEAVE MY CLRED ALT AND HDG UNLESS I WAS CERTAIN OF A CLRNC, AND NEITHER THE COPLT NOR I FELT THAT THERE WAS ANY QUESTION AS TO OUR CLRNC. UPON CONSIDERABLE REFLECTION, WE BOTH FEEL THAT WE WERE COMFORTABLE WITH OUR DECISION TO BEGIN THE VIS APCH IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE HEARD OVER THE RADIO. IN ANY CASE, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SAFETY WAS AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, AS TFC WAS ALMOST NONEXISTENT, THE VISIBILITY WAS PERFECT, AND WE DID HAVE A CLRNC FROM THE TWR TO LAND.

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.