Narrative:

We had blocked out of msp 45 mins late for stl due to flow control at stl because of low ceilings and visibility. The first officer was flying the leg. The flight was normal until the approach at stl. After slats and flaps 5 degrees had been selected, the slat extend light begin to flicker and then went out. The slat disagree light came on. At this time, we were in the middle of a line of aircraft being vectored by approach to runway 30R at stl. While the first officer flew the aircraft, I started the slat disagree procedure. Although the problem appeared to be a light or switch problem (we had no adverse roll indicating the slats were out even) we increased speed in coordination with approach in order to follow the checklist. During this time, I had a flight attendant who knew what the extended slats look like make a visual check. He confirmed that the slats were extended. At this point, we were cleared for approach. We elected to continue and slowed to 170 KTS to fit in the approach sequence. When flaps 15 degrees were selected the slat extend light came back on and the disagree light went out. We were approaching the OM and our full attention shifted back to the instrument approach. The rest of the approach and landing was normal. When turning off the runway, the first officer went to select ground control and that's when we realized that we had not switched and called the tower for landing clearance. Approach usually switches you to tower right after the clearance for approach. With the increased workload of the slat problem, neither of us even remembered hearing approach switch us. In the future, I will discontinue the approach, solve the problem, and then continue in order to lower the workload.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF MLG HAS SLAT DISAGREE LIGHT ACTIVATE. NO CTL PROBS EXIST SO THEY CONTINUE THE APCH AND LNDG. ON ROLLOUT THEY DISCOVER THEY HAVE NOT CONTACTED TWR FOR LNDG CLRNC.

Narrative: WE HAD BLOCKED OUT OF MSP 45 MINS LATE FOR STL DUE TO FLOW CTL AT STL BECAUSE OF LOW CEILINGS AND VISIBILITY. THE FO WAS FLYING THE LEG. THE FLT WAS NORMAL UNTIL THE APCH AT STL. AFTER SLATS AND FLAPS 5 DEGS HAD BEEN SELECTED, THE SLAT EXTEND LIGHT BEGIN TO FLICKER AND THEN WENT OUT. THE SLAT DISAGREE LIGHT CAME ON. AT THIS TIME, WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF A LINE OF ACFT BEING VECTORED BY APCH TO RWY 30R AT STL. WHILE THE FO FLEW THE ACFT, I STARTED THE SLAT DISAGREE PROC. ALTHOUGH THE PROB APPEARED TO BE A LIGHT OR SWITCH PROB (WE HAD NO ADVERSE ROLL INDICATING THE SLATS WERE OUT EVEN) WE INCREASED SPD IN COORD WITH APCH IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THE CHKLIST. DURING THIS TIME, I HAD A FLT ATTENDANT WHO KNEW WHAT THE EXTENDED SLATS LOOK LIKE MAKE A VISUAL CHK. HE CONFIRMED THAT THE SLATS WERE EXTENDED. AT THIS POINT, WE WERE CLRED FOR APCH. WE ELECTED TO CONTINUE AND SLOWED TO 170 KTS TO FIT IN THE APCH SEQUENCE. WHEN FLAPS 15 DEGS WERE SELECTED THE SLAT EXTEND LIGHT CAME BACK ON AND THE DISAGREE LIGHT WENT OUT. WE WERE APCHING THE OM AND OUR FULL ATTN SHIFTED BACK TO THE INST APCH. THE REST OF THE APCH AND LNDG WAS NORMAL. WHEN TURNING OFF THE RWY, THE FO WENT TO SELECT GND CTL AND THAT'S WHEN WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD NOT SWITCHED AND CALLED THE TWR FOR LNDG CLRNC. APCH USUALLY SWITCHES YOU TO TWR RIGHT AFTER THE CLRNC FOR APCH. WITH THE INCREASED WORKLOAD OF THE SLAT PROB, NEITHER OF US EVEN REMEMBERED HEARING APCH SWITCH US. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL DISCONTINUE THE APCH, SOLVE THE PROB, AND THEN CONTINUE IN ORDER TO LOWER THE WORKLOAD.

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.