Narrative:

We were recently flying into cvg. I was captain of the flight but performing copilot duties, it being the copilot's leg. The flight was in delay about 2 hours due to multiple ground holds at our departure city for thunderstorms at cvg. We were being vectored into cvg to land on runway 36L on approach control frequency 127.7, having been sent to this frequency from a different approach control passing through approximately 4000 ft MSL. It was night, IMC flight conditions, the field calling 600 ft 2 1/2 mi. The controller was considerably busy, talking almost non-stop, and seemed to be controling flts into both runways 36L and 36R. We sensed that ATC's operations were somewhat different: the stormy WX had recently ended and there seemed to be a large surge of inbound aircraft, there was confusion about them not being able to get the ATIS broadcast, we had been passed along the way to what seemed to be more than the usual number of approach control sectors, or at least, frequencys, and finally, with our last approach controller seemingly bearing increased responsibilities, we wondered how fully operational the tower was. We ended up landing while on approach control frequency, which seemed totally feasible for the given conditions, but due to the frequency congestion, we never could verify our landing clearance. We exited the runway and contacted ground control for taxi instructions, no other aircraft were involved. In this instance, I think our final approach controller, for whatever reason, was unreasonably overloaded. Also, I've noticed a trend lately of approach controllers nationwide to vector aircraft in IMC conditions in traffic patterns not much larger than VFR patterns.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B727 CREW LANDED WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: WE WERE RECENTLY FLYING INTO CVG. I WAS CAPT OF THE FLT BUT PERFORMING COPLT DUTIES, IT BEING THE COPLT'S LEG. THE FLT WAS IN DELAY ABOUT 2 HRS DUE TO MULTIPLE GND HOLDS AT OUR DEP CITY FOR TSTMS AT CVG. WE WERE BEING VECTORED INTO CVG TO LAND ON RWY 36L ON APCH CTL FREQ 127.7, HAVING BEEN SENT TO THIS FREQ FROM A DIFFERENT APCH CTL PASSING THROUGH APPROX 4000 FT MSL. IT WAS NIGHT, IMC FLT CONDITIONS, THE FIELD CALLING 600 FT 2 1/2 MI. THE CTLR WAS CONSIDERABLY BUSY, TALKING ALMOST NON-STOP, AND SEEMED TO BE CTLING FLTS INTO BOTH RWYS 36L AND 36R. WE SENSED THAT ATC'S OPS WERE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT: THE STORMY WX HAD RECENTLY ENDED AND THERE SEEMED TO BE A LARGE SURGE OF INBOUND ACFT, THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO GET THE ATIS BROADCAST, WE HAD BEEN PASSED ALONG THE WAY TO WHAT SEEMED TO BE MORE THAN THE USUAL NUMBER OF APCH CTL SECTORS, OR AT LEAST, FREQS, AND FINALLY, WITH OUR LAST APCH CTLR SEEMINGLY BEARING INCREASED RESPONSIBILITIES, WE WONDERED HOW FULLY OPERATIONAL THE TWR WAS. WE ENDED UP LNDG WHILE ON APCH CTL FREQ, WHICH SEEMED TOTALLY FEASIBLE FOR THE GIVEN CONDITIONS, BUT DUE TO THE FREQ CONGESTION, WE NEVER COULD VERIFY OUR LNDG CLRNC. WE EXITED THE RWY AND CONTACTED GND CTL FOR TAXI INSTRUCTIONS, NO OTHER ACFT WERE INVOLVED. IN THIS INSTANCE, I THINK OUR FINAL APCH CTLR, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WAS UNREASONABLY OVERLOADED. ALSO, I'VE NOTICED A TREND LATELY OF APCH CTLRS NATIONWIDE TO VECTOR ACFT IN IMC CONDITIONS IN TFC PATTERNS NOT MUCH LARGER THAN VFR PATTERNS.

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.