Pilot of small transport air taxi landed swf without clearance.

Attributes
ACN	137580
Time
Date	199002
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : swf
State Reference	NY
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zbw tower : swf
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Small Transport, Low Wing, 2 Recip Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 120 flight time total : 21000 flight time type : 300
ASRS Report	137580
Person 2
Affiliation	government : faa
Function	controller : local
Qualification	controller : non radar
Events
Anomaly	incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : clearance non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other controllera other other : unspecified cockpit
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Boston ARTCC cleared aircraft direct manee intersection via direct and cleared for ILS 9 at swf. (Non radar environment) after reporting manee aircraft was advised to contact swf CTAF. CTAF advised aircraft to report neely which I mistook for manee and advised that we were by manee. There were no further transmissions from the CTAF or the approach control until after landing. During roll-out CTAF asked if we were on the ground. My reply was 'roger'. CTAF replied 'you landed west/O a landing clearance because you didn't report neely'. I advised that I reported manee on initial contact. CTAF corrected me and said neely OM is 3 mi out. No contest on my part. One should not land west/O landing clearance and OM is required report in non radar environment. Suggestion: adjacent fixes be named so that there are no similar syllable sounds. Nonradar environment are rare enough these day so that each facility should advise pilot as a reminder. Pilot should make landing clearance part of final check (gumps)?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMT AIR TAXI LANDED SWF WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: BOSTON ARTCC CLRED ACFT DIRECT MANEE INTXN VIA DIRECT AND CLRED FOR ILS 9 AT SWF. (NON RADAR ENVIRONMENT) AFTER RPTING MANEE ACFT WAS ADVISED TO CONTACT SWF CTAF. CTAF ADVISED ACFT TO RPT NEELY WHICH I MISTOOK FOR MANEE AND ADVISED THAT WE WERE BY MANEE. THERE WERE NO FURTHER TRANSMISSIONS FROM THE CTAF OR THE APCH CTL UNTIL AFTER LNDG. DURING ROLL-OUT CTAF ASKED IF WE WERE ON THE GND. MY REPLY WAS 'ROGER'. CTAF REPLIED 'YOU LANDED W/O A LNDG CLRNC BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T RPT NEELY'. I ADVISED THAT I RPTED MANEE ON INITIAL CONTACT. CTAF CORRECTED ME AND SAID NEELY OM IS 3 MI OUT. NO CONTEST ON MY PART. ONE SHOULD NOT LAND W/O LNDG CLRNC AND OM IS REQUIRED RPT IN NON RADAR ENVIRONMENT. SUGGESTION: ADJACENT FIXES BE NAMED SO THAT THERE ARE NO SIMILAR SYLLABLE SOUNDS. NONRADAR ENVIRONMENT ARE RARE ENOUGH THESE DAY SO THAT EACH FAC SHOULD ADVISE PLT AS A REMINDER. PLT SHOULD MAKE LNDG CLRNC PART OF FINAL CHK (GUMPS)?

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.