Narrative:

IFR flight plan stp to ege. Autoplt quit 1 hour into flight. Aircraft has no restrs to operations and can be hand flown at altitude with no problem. Convective WX in area of destination, which is a mountainous area. Workload was high, but we briefed at altitude for what we knew was a challenging approach. WX was on both sides of the destination, but airport was in good VMC. We accepted radar vectors off the approach (GPS) by ZDV to attempt to approach in VMC while continuously monitoring our position versus MSA and monitoring egpws. We acquired the airport visually and accepted the visual approach. (Both of us concurred, otherwise we would not have done it.) the aircraft was high and required full landing confign and 2000+ FPM descent to get to a visual descent point about 7 mi out to finish a normal landing. At 6 1/2 mi out, called tower. They said to 'call at 5 mi.' we both forgot because WX on the other side of the airport was now moving in with significant lightning and rain. Landed. On rollout, tower asked if that was us rolling out on runway 25. We said yes, and looked at each other. Tower said 'you're the 7TH one to do this today!' of course, it was our fault. We did not confirm clearance to land. We wonder why ATC does it this way. With this proximity (6 1/2 mi), why not issue a landing clearance? After landing, the WX moved in and we watched it from the FBO lounge. Biggest reasons for this mistake was aircraft malfunction, off terminal route for WX avoidance in mountainous terrain, high and fast approach, high workload, fast developing WX and what I think is a somewhat nonstandard ATC procedure. I don't believe any other aircraft were taking off or landing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SBR1 FLT CREW LWOC AT EGE DURING VISUAL APCH WITH WX APCHING ARPT.

Narrative: IFR FLT PLAN STP TO EGE. AUTOPLT QUIT 1 HR INTO FLT. ACFT HAS NO RESTRS TO OPS AND CAN BE HAND FLOWN AT ALT WITH NO PROB. CONVECTIVE WX IN AREA OF DEST, WHICH IS A MOUNTAINOUS AREA. WORKLOAD WAS HIGH, BUT WE BRIEFED AT ALT FOR WHAT WE KNEW WAS A CHALLENGING APCH. WX WAS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEST, BUT ARPT WAS IN GOOD VMC. WE ACCEPTED RADAR VECTORS OFF THE APCH (GPS) BY ZDV TO ATTEMPT TO APCH IN VMC WHILE CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING OUR POS VERSUS MSA AND MONITORING EGPWS. WE ACQUIRED THE ARPT VISUALLY AND ACCEPTED THE VISUAL APCH. (BOTH OF US CONCURRED, OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT.) THE ACFT WAS HIGH AND REQUIRED FULL LNDG CONFIGN AND 2000+ FPM DSCNT TO GET TO A VISUAL DSCNT POINT ABOUT 7 MI OUT TO FINISH A NORMAL LNDG. AT 6 1/2 MI OUT, CALLED TWR. THEY SAID TO 'CALL AT 5 MI.' WE BOTH FORGOT BECAUSE WX ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ARPT WAS NOW MOVING IN WITH SIGNIFICANT LIGHTNING AND RAIN. LANDED. ON ROLLOUT, TWR ASKED IF THAT WAS US ROLLING OUT ON RWY 25. WE SAID YES, AND LOOKED AT EACH OTHER. TWR SAID 'YOU'RE THE 7TH ONE TO DO THIS TODAY!' OF COURSE, IT WAS OUR FAULT. WE DID NOT CONFIRM CLRNC TO LAND. WE WONDER WHY ATC DOES IT THIS WAY. WITH THIS PROX (6 1/2 MI), WHY NOT ISSUE A LNDG CLRNC? AFTER LNDG, THE WX MOVED IN AND WE WATCHED IT FROM THE FBO LOUNGE. BIGGEST REASONS FOR THIS MISTAKE WAS ACFT MALFUNCTION, OFF TERMINAL RTE FOR WX AVOIDANCE IN MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN, HIGH AND FAST APCH, HIGH WORKLOAD, FAST DEVELOPING WX AND WHAT I THINK IS A SOMEWHAT NONSTANDARD ATC PROC. I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OTHER ACFT WERE TAKING OFF OR LNDG.

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.