Clearance landing not received. Unauthorized landing.

Attributes
ACN	301960
Time
Date	199504
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : den
State Reference	CO
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 msl bound lower : 7000 msl bound upper : 7000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : den tower : den tower : dca
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 190 flight time total : 4470 flight time type : 2300
ASRS Report	301960
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : cfi
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 550
ASRS Report	301959
Events
Anomaly	incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : far non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other controllera 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:

At approximately 15 mi out, we were cleared for a visual to runway 35L/den and told to contact tower at the FAF. Approximately at the FAF, the captain called for gear, flaps, and checklists. We were also looking for traffic and maintaining separation from traffic ahead. We were workload saturated and landed without a clearance. After landing we switched to tower and they said switch to ground. Nothing was said about landing without a clearance. As usual, there are several causes that led up to this omission. I believe one of the causes was being told to switch to tower at a point later in the approach. I think the controller should only give a clearance to 'contact tower now,' not to contact tower 10 mi down the road. I also think that unfamiliarity with tower frequency at the new den airport (and the fact that the frequency in use is not always the frequency on approach chart) added to the problem. And of course, the other problem being the confign changes at the FAF and the associated workload. We had good contact and separation from our preceding traffic and were in no conflict with any traffic.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLRNC LNDG NOT RECEIVED. UNAUTH LNDG.

Narrative: AT APPROX 15 MI OUT, WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 35L/DEN AND TOLD TO CONTACT TWR AT THE FAF. APPROX AT THE FAF, THE CAPT CALLED FOR GEAR, FLAPS, AND CHKLISTS. WE WERE ALSO LOOKING FOR TFC AND MAINTAINING SEPARATION FROM TFC AHEAD. WE WERE WORKLOAD SATURATED AND LANDED WITHOUT A CLRNC. AFTER LNDG WE SWITCHED TO TWR AND THEY SAID SWITCH TO GND. NOTHING WAS SAID ABOUT LNDG WITHOUT A CLRNC. AS USUAL, THERE ARE SEVERAL CAUSES THAT LED UP TO THIS OMISSION. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE CAUSES WAS BEING TOLD TO SWITCH TO TWR AT A POINT LATER IN THE APCH. I THINK THE CTLR SHOULD ONLY GIVE A CLRNC TO 'CONTACT TWR NOW,' NOT TO CONTACT TWR 10 MI DOWN THE ROAD. I ALSO THINK THAT UNFAMILIARITY WITH TWR FREQ AT THE NEW DEN ARPT (AND THE FACT THAT THE FREQ IN USE IS NOT ALWAYS THE FREQ ON APCH CHART) ADDED TO THE PROB. AND OF COURSE, THE OTHER PROB BEING THE CONFIGN CHANGES AT THE FAF AND THE ASSOCIATED WORKLOAD. WE HAD GOOD CONTACT AND SEPARATION FROM OUR PRECEDING TFC AND WERE IN NO CONFLICT WITH ANY TFC.

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.