Narrative:

Descent into the slc area was normal, except for approach control's high level of activity. The controller seemed very busy, but the frequency didn't sound too bad. Recent experience with approaching sandwiching in arrs from straight-in's and base leg in VMC led to some crew apprehension about sequencing. We were vectored to a normal base leg position and asked to call an aircraft on final or the airport in sight. We had the traffic in sight and on TCAS, and the airport in sight. The last contact for us with approach was, 'follow that aircraft, cleared for visibility approach 34L.' we were not told of any other traffic in the area, nor to contact tower. After rolling out on final approach with adequate spacing behind the aircraft in front of us, we configured for landing prior to 1000' AGL. Shortly thereafter, we received a 'traffic, traffic' alert from the TCAS, we checked the display and confirmed a light aircraft on approach at our 4 O'clock to runway 34L. We then returned our attention to our approach to 34L and landed west/O incident. Upon clearing the runway, it was noted we were still on approach control's frequency. None of us could recall being sent to tower frequency by approach control or being cleared to land by approach or tower. The activity level on approach frequency and the interruption of normal confirmation of landing clearance on final by the TCAS system both contributed to the error.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT UNAUTH LNDG AT SLC.

Narrative: DSNT INTO THE SLC AREA WAS NORMAL, EXCEPT FOR APCH CTL'S HIGH LEVEL OF ACTIVITY. THE CTLR SEEMED VERY BUSY, BUT THE FREQ DIDN'T SOUND TOO BAD. RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH APCHING SANDWICHING IN ARRS FROM STRAIGHT-IN'S AND BASE LEG IN VMC LED TO SOME CREW APPREHENSION ABOUT SEQUENCING. WE WERE VECTORED TO A NORMAL BASE LEG POS AND ASKED TO CALL AN ACFT ON FINAL OR THE ARPT IN SIGHT. WE HAD THE TFC IN SIGHT AND ON TCAS, AND THE ARPT IN SIGHT. THE LAST CONTACT FOR US WITH APCH WAS, 'FOLLOW THAT ACFT, CLRED FOR VIS APCH 34L.' WE WERE NOT TOLD OF ANY OTHER TFC IN THE AREA, NOR TO CONTACT TWR. AFTER ROLLING OUT ON FINAL APCH WITH ADEQUATE SPACING BEHIND THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US, WE CONFIGURED FOR LNDG PRIOR TO 1000' AGL. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE RECEIVED A 'TFC, TFC' ALERT FROM THE TCAS, WE CHKED THE DISPLAY AND CONFIRMED A LIGHT ACFT ON APCH AT OUR 4 O'CLOCK TO RWY 34L. WE THEN RETURNED OUR ATTN TO OUR APCH TO 34L AND LANDED W/O INCIDENT. UPON CLRING THE RWY, IT WAS NOTED WE WERE STILL ON APCH CTL'S FREQ. NONE OF US COULD RECALL BEING SENT TO TWR FREQ BY APCH CTL OR BEING CLRED TO LAND BY APCH OR TWR. THE ACTIVITY LEVEL ON APCH FREQ AND THE INTERRUPTION OF NORMAL CONFIRMATION OF LNDG CLRNC ON FINAL BY THE TCAS SYS BOTH CONTRIBUTED TO THE ERROR.

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.