Unauthorized landing -- frequency congestion.

Attributes
ACN	297410
Time
Date	199502
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mmu
State Reference	NJ
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : ngm
Operator	general aviation : personal
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	landing other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	observation : passenger
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 10 flight time total : 2100 flight time type : 800
ASRS Report	297410
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time total : 10000
Events
Anomaly	incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : far other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted other
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation other

Narrative:

Mmv tower was contacted about 7 mi out that we were inbound landing with the ATIS. The tower told the pilot to report on a 4 mi straight in final. There was a lot of talk on the frequency especially with transitioning aircraft. The pilot reported 4 mi out (LORAN C) and got no response. He reported 3 mi and got no response. He reported 2 mi and then the tower responded with 'you were told to report at 4.' the pilot responded that he had reported at 4 and 3. There was a cessna on final in front of us. The tower said that we would be #2 after the cessna and 'you could make some wide south turns if you like.' the pilot said he would and did the south turns until the cessna landed. The pilot then straightened out and continued on final. At this point a transitioning aircraft was talking to the tower. The pilot at every pause in conversation, between the transitioning aircraft and the tower, asked if we were cleared to land (the cessna was now clear of the runway). We continued the final approach with the pilot still asking if we were cleared to land. By the time it became obvious that the tower was not going to get back to us (the transitioning aircraft was still talking) we were very low and slow and did land. I had a good view of the situation and really felt it would have been unsafe to attempt a go around so low and slow. After the landing, a different controller got on the radio and thanked us for our help. I'm not sure in this situation if we were right or wrong, but what scares me about something like this is the possibility of a pilot with less experience and still involved (our pilot has about 10000 hours) being so caught up in obeying the rules that he might have attempted and failed at a go around.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: UNAUTH LNDG -- FREQ CONGESTION.

Narrative: MMV TWR WAS CONTACTED ABOUT 7 MI OUT THAT WE WERE INBOUND LNDG WITH THE ATIS. THE TWR TOLD THE PLT TO RPT ON A 4 MI STRAIGHT IN FINAL. THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ON THE FREQ ESPECIALLY WITH TRANSITIONING ACFT. THE PLT RPTED 4 MI OUT (LORAN C) AND GOT NO RESPONSE. HE RPTED 3 MI AND GOT NO RESPONSE. HE RPTED 2 MI AND THEN THE TWR RESPONDED WITH 'YOU WERE TOLD TO RPT AT 4.' THE PLT RESPONDED THAT HE HAD RPTED AT 4 AND 3. THERE WAS A CESSNA ON FINAL IN FRONT OF US. THE TWR SAID THAT WE WOULD BE #2 AFTER THE CESSNA AND 'YOU COULD MAKE SOME WIDE S TURNS IF YOU LIKE.' THE PLT SAID HE WOULD AND DID THE S TURNS UNTIL THE CESSNA LANDED. THE PLT THEN STRAIGHTENED OUT AND CONTINUED ON FINAL. AT THIS POINT A TRANSITIONING ACFT WAS TALKING TO THE TWR. THE PLT AT EVERY PAUSE IN CONVERSATION, BTWN THE TRANSITIONING ACFT AND THE TWR, ASKED IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND (THE CESSNA WAS NOW CLR OF THE RWY). WE CONTINUED THE FINAL APCH WITH THE PLT STILL ASKING IF WE WERE CLRED TO LAND. BY THE TIME IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE TWR WAS NOT GOING TO GET BACK TO US (THE TRANSITIONING ACFT WAS STILL TALKING) WE WERE VERY LOW AND SLOW AND DID LAND. I HAD A GOOD VIEW OF THE SIT AND REALLY FELT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNSAFE TO ATTEMPT A GAR SO LOW AND SLOW. AFTER THE LNDG, A DIFFERENT CTLR GOT ON THE RADIO AND THANKED US FOR OUR HELP. I'M NOT SURE IN THIS SIT IF WE WERE RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT WHAT SCARES ME ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A PLT WITH LESS EXPERIENCE AND STILL INVOLVED (OUR PLT HAS ABOUT 10000 HRS) BEING SO CAUGHT UP IN OBEYING THE RULES THAT HE MIGHT HAVE ATTEMPTED AND FAILED AT A GAR.

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.