Narrative:

After being vectored for visual approach to runway 27 (with lndgs being made on intersecting runway 18L) with a turn for spacing approach control cleared us to land and to contact the tower on 119.5. I tuned the radio, made the call and then got caught up in the landing checks and checklists and that the tower had not responded or that there was no noise at all. Because runway 27 was much shorter than the other 2 runways we discussed using 45 degree flaps instead of 25 degree and that because of construction that we would have to make the taxiway just after the runway 18L intersection, as we were on rollout we noticed a md-80 on go around on runway 18L. Possibly due to conflict with our landing on runway 27. If landings on intersecting runways the directions and spacing should be given early especially if any hold short instructions are given in order for the conflicting aircraft to locate each other and make timely decisions about whether or not to accept the crossing runway or any hold short landing instructions. Supplemental information from acn 280591: at no time were we handed off (we assume) to tower due to traffic and on the controller (land 27 hold short of runway 18L). Additionally, no 'expect to land and hold short' clrncs were issued by approach control. We landed without talking to tower and realized this when we switched to ground control. It is the first officer's and my belief that a landing clearance for runway 27 was implied by the approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLTDEV -- ACR A LANDED WITHOUT CLRNC RESULTING IN A GAR FOR ACR B ON AN INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative: AFTER BEING VECTORED FOR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27 (WITH LNDGS BEING MADE ON INTERSECTING RWY 18L) WITH A TURN FOR SPACING APCH CTL CLRED US TO LAND AND TO CONTACT THE TWR ON 119.5. I TUNED THE RADIO, MADE THE CALL AND THEN GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE LNDG CHKS AND CHKLISTS AND THAT THE TWR HAD NOT RESPONDED OR THAT THERE WAS NO NOISE AT ALL. BECAUSE RWY 27 WAS MUCH SHORTER THAN THE OTHER 2 RWYS WE DISCUSSED USING 45 DEG FLAPS INSTEAD OF 25 DEG AND THAT BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE TXWY JUST AFTER THE RWY 18L INTXN, AS WE WERE ON ROLLOUT WE NOTICED A MD-80 ON GAR ON RWY 18L. POSSIBLY DUE TO CONFLICT WITH OUR LNDG ON RWY 27. IF LANDINGS ON INTERSECTING RWYS THE DIRECTIONS AND SPACING SHOULD BE GIVEN EARLY ESPECIALLY IF ANY HOLD SHORT INSTRUCTIONS ARE GIVEN IN ORDER FOR THE CONFLICTING ACFT TO LOCATE EACH OTHER AND MAKE TIMELY DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THE XING RWY OR ANY HOLD SHORT LNDG INSTRUCTIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 280591: AT NO TIME WERE WE HANDED OFF (WE ASSUME) TO TWR DUE TO TFC AND ON THE CTLR (LAND 27 HOLD SHORT OF RWY 18L). ADDITIONALLY, NO 'EXPECT TO LAND AND HOLD SHORT' CLRNCS WERE ISSUED BY APCH CTL. WE LANDED WITHOUT TALKING TO TWR AND REALIZED THIS WHEN WE SWITCHED TO GND CTL. IT IS THE FO'S AND MY BELIEF THAT A LNDG CLRNC FOR RWY 27 WAS IMPLIED BY THE APCH.

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.