A runway change when on the ksino RNAV one arrival to las, nv leads to landing without clearance.

Attributes
ACN	562799
Time
Date	200210
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : las.airport
State Reference	NV
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : fxe.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	landing : roll
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 350 flight time total : 20500 flight time type : 3400
ASRS Report	562799
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : far non adherence : clearance
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Airspace Structure Company Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We were cleared via ksino arrival for runway 25L. Very late on the approach, the controller changed the clearance to ksino arrival, runway 19L transition. I was the PNF, it takes time to change the approach, rebrief and request new landing numbers for the new runway. The controller was giving us vectors for a close in left base for runway 19L. It had put us on about a four mile final. The aircraft was properly configured for landing and are the checklist completed. The controller cleared us for a visual to runway 19L. I had to ask him to confirm the runway as runway 19L. He was talking to other aircraft and really not paying attention to us. After landing, I realized we had not switched to tower for landing clearance. The controller did not say anything. We switched to ground control and received clearance to the gate. It is my opinion that this last min change is not really a good procedure on the part of ATC. I came very close to abandoning the approach, however, procedurally, we had complied with all the requirements, checklist completed and a stabilized approach. Both of us are experienced pilots in this type with a lot of experience flying in and out of las. The new style ACARS requires more strokes to retrieve information and is not user friendly as the old style. The database in the FMS has an RNAV approach for runway 19L, however, we do not have plates for it. Only the visual approach for runway 19L can be legally executed, which we did. Having an approach in the database is absurd and confusing. In the future, I will not let ATC push me around, if they are over taxed I will be happy to hold until they sort out their traffic problems. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the runway change was made passing cutax intersection with an assigned speed of 230 KTS instead of the charted 210 crossing speed. Reprogramming was completed in time for the change in the RNAV course, but a distraction was caused by using the ACARS to retrieve new runway information and searching for the RNAV approach to runway 19 which the company has elected not to provide. The clearance to contact the tower was given at the point in the approach that landing clearance is usually received and was accepted as the landing clearance in error.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A RWY CHANGE WHEN ON THE KSINO RNAV ONE ARR TO LAS, NV LEADS TO LNDG WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED VIA KSINO ARR FOR RWY 25L. VERY LATE ON THE APCH, THE CTLR CHANGED THE CLRNC TO KSINO ARR, RWY 19L TRANSITION. I WAS THE PNF, IT TAKES TIME TO CHANGE THE APCH, REBRIEF AND REQUEST NEW LNDG NUMBERS FOR THE NEW RWY. THE CTLR WAS GIVING US VECTORS FOR A CLOSE IN L BASE FOR RWY 19L. IT HAD PUT US ON ABOUT A FOUR MILE FINAL. THE ACFT WAS PROPERLY CONFIGURED FOR LNDG AND ARE THE CHKLIST COMPLETED. THE CTLR CLRED US FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 19L. I HAD TO ASK HIM TO CONFIRM THE RWY AS RWY 19L. HE WAS TALKING TO OTHER ACFT AND REALLY NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO US. AFTER LNDG, I REALIZED WE HAD NOT SWITCHED TO TWR FOR LNDG CLRNC. THE CTLR DID NOT SAY ANYTHING. WE SWITCHED TO GND CTL AND RECEIVED CLRNC TO THE GATE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THIS LAST MIN CHANGE IS NOT REALLY A GOOD PROC ON THE PART OF ATC. I CAME VERY CLOSE TO ABANDONING THE APCH, HOWEVER, PROCEDURALLY, WE HAD COMPLIED WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, CHKLIST COMPLETED AND A STABILIZED APCH. BOTH OF US ARE EXPERIENCED PLTS IN THIS TYPE WITH A LOT OF EXPERIENCE FLYING IN AND OUT OF LAS. THE NEW STYLE ACARS REQUIRES MORE STROKES TO RETRIEVE INFO AND IS NOT USER FRIENDLY AS THE OLD STYLE. THE DATABASE IN THE FMS HAS AN RNAV APCH FOR RWY 19L, HOWEVER, WE DO NOT HAVE PLATES FOR IT. ONLY THE VISUAL APCH FOR RWY 19L CAN BE LEGALLY EXECUTED, WHICH WE DID. HAVING AN APCH IN THE DATABASE IS ABSURD AND CONFUSING. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL NOT LET ATC PUSH ME AROUND, IF THEY ARE OVER TAXED I WILL BE HAPPY TO HOLD UNTIL THEY SORT OUT THEIR TFC PROBS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RWY CHANGE WAS MADE PASSING CUTAX INTXN WITH AN ASSIGNED SPD OF 230 KTS INSTEAD OF THE CHARTED 210 CROSSING SPD. REPROGRAMMING WAS COMPLETED IN TIME FOR THE CHANGE IN THE RNAV COURSE, BUT A DISTR WAS CAUSED BY USING THE ACARS TO RETRIEVE NEW RWY INFO AND SEARCHING FOR THE RNAV APCH TO RWY 19 WHICH THE COMPANY HAS ELECTED NOT TO PROVIDE. THE CLRNC TO CONTACT THE TWR WAS GIVEN AT THE POINT IN THE APCH THAT LNDG CLRNC IS USUALLY RECEIVED AND WAS ACCEPTED AS THE LNDG CLRNC IN ERROR.

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.