Narrative:

On approach frequency we were given a vector in intercept final isl 8L. We intercepted the ILS on a normal approach but were not given a handoff to tower by approach control. We were involved in the landing checklist, the first officer was flying and I was fixated on the first officer who not in the proper landing parameters. In the meantime I overlooked tuning into tower frequency to obtain a landing clearance. The approach controller did not try to contact us as we were still tuned to approach control frequency (118.3). The sequence of aircraft was normal, and the runway was clear of the previous aircraft that landed prior to us. There was an aircraft holding short of the runway for departure. All seemed normal until we turned off the runway and ground mentioned they were trying to contact us on tower frequency. He did not directly say that we landed west/O clearance and did not ask us to call him or any FAA person. Human performance factors were 5.5 hour flight after minimum crew rest. Tired, but not exhausted crew. Crew complacency since this is our home airport. Approach controls failure to hand us off to tower. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter described the flts he had flown prior to this one which caused the flight crew fatigue cited in the report. He also gave details of the approach being flown by the first officer. The airspeed was kept high until within 10 miles of the airport and from that point on the first officer was 'back-peddling' trying to slow and configure the aircraft for the approach and landing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HVT LANDS WITHOUT RECEIVING LNDG CLRNC FROM TWR.

Narrative: ON APCH FREQ WE WERE GIVEN A VECTOR IN INTERCEPT FINAL ISL 8L. WE INTERCEPTED THE ILS ON A NORMAL APCH BUT WERE NOT GIVEN A HANDOFF TO TWR BY APCH CTL. WE WERE INVOLVED IN THE LNDG CHKLIST, THE F/O WAS FLYING AND I WAS FIXATED ON THE F/O WHO NOT IN THE PROPER LNDG PARAMETERS. IN THE MEANTIME I OVERLOOKED TUNING INTO TWR FREQ TO OBTAIN A LNDG CLRNC. THE APCH CTLR DID NOT TRY TO CONTACT US AS WE WERE STILL TUNED TO APCH CTL FREQ (118.3). THE SEQUENCE OF ACFT WAS NORMAL, AND THE RWY WAS CLR OF THE PREVIOUS ACFT THAT LANDED PRIOR TO US. THERE WAS AN ACFT HOLDING SHORT OF THE RWY FOR DEP. ALL SEEMED NORMAL UNTIL WE TURNED OFF THE RWY AND GND MENTIONED THEY WERE TRYING TO CONTACT US ON TWR FREQ. HE DID NOT DIRECTLY SAY THAT WE LANDED W/O CLRNC AND DID NOT ASK US TO CALL HIM OR ANY FAA PERSON. HUMAN PERFORMANCE FACTORS WERE 5.5 HR FLT AFTER MINIMUM CREW REST. TIRED, BUT NOT EXHAUSTED CREW. CREW COMPLACENCY SINCE THIS IS OUR HOME ARPT. APCH CTLS FAILURE TO HAND US OFF TO TWR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR DESCRIBED THE FLTS HE HAD FLOWN PRIOR TO THIS ONE WHICH CAUSED THE FLT CREW FATIGUE CITED IN THE RPT. HE ALSO GAVE DETAILS OF THE APCH BEING FLOWN BY THE F/O. THE AIRSPD WAS KEPT HIGH UNTIL WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE ARPT AND FROM THAT POINT ON THE F/O WAS 'BACK-PEDDLING' TRYING TO SLOW AND CONFIGURE THE ACFT FOR THE APCH AND 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.