Commuter light transport on a training flight with an aci unauthorized landing.

Attributes
ACN	155846
Time
Date	199008
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : msp
State Reference	MN
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : msp tower : hou
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	VFR
Person 1
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	flight crew : first officer observation : company check pilot
Qualification	pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 25 flight time total : 4000 flight time type : 50
ASRS Report	155846
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : far non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

The problem involved a communications breakdown between our aircraft, an light transport, and the ATCT at msp. I was conducting a single pilot light transport type check plus an ATP check and part 135 PIC check at the same time. The approach and landing was to runway 29R at mps. The applicant was acting as the PIC in the left seat, so as to grade crew crew coordination to meet part 135 requirements I was acting as an sic for this final approach. The applicant was operating the radios. He attempted to make a call from approach to tower, but I never heard an acknowledgement for landing clearance. The TCA was very busy with saturated radio traffic. Actually the applicant double-switched the radio from approach to tower and back to approach. I missed the double-switch. We both realized problem on landing roll as we called tower and got approach. Lessons learned: msp is not an airport I regularly fly from. An unfamiliar airport combined with a TCA is not a good environment to give a check ride. My failure to confirm landing clearance with applicant contributed to problem.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER LTT ON A TRAINING FLT WITH AN ACI UNAUTH LNDG.

Narrative: THE PROB INVOLVED A COMS BREAKDOWN BTWN OUR ACFT, AN LTT, AND THE ATCT AT MSP. I WAS CONDUCTING A SINGLE PLT LTT TYPE CHK PLUS AN ATP CHK AND PART 135 PIC CHK AT THE SAME TIME. THE APCH AND LNDG WAS TO RWY 29R AT MPS. THE APPLICANT WAS ACTING AS THE PIC IN THE LEFT SEAT, SO AS TO GRADE CREW CREW COORD TO MEET PART 135 REQUIREMENTS I WAS ACTING AS AN SIC FOR THIS FINAL APCH. THE APPLICANT WAS OPERATING THE RADIOS. HE ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A CALL FROM APCH TO TWR, BUT I NEVER HEARD AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR LNDG CLRNC. THE TCA WAS VERY BUSY WITH SATURATED RADIO TFC. ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT DOUBLE-SWITCHED THE RADIO FROM APCH TO TWR AND BACK TO APCH. I MISSED THE DOUBLE-SWITCH. WE BOTH REALIZED PROB ON LNDG ROLL AS WE CALLED TWR AND GOT APCH. LESSONS LEARNED: MSP IS NOT AN ARPT I REGULARLY FLY FROM. AN UNFAMILIAR ARPT COMBINED WITH A TCA IS NOT A GOOD ENVIRONMENT TO GIVE A CHK RIDE. MY FAILURE TO CONFIRM LNDG CLRNC WITH APPLICANT CONTRIBUTED TO PROB.

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.