Narrative:

While on approach into tulsa international, we were working with tulsa approach. The controller was also working departure and seemed very busy. To complicate matters she was having difficulty with a civilian single engine aircraft that seemed to be lost. In the confusion I believe the tower controller forgot to switch us to local (tower). I failed to request the frequency change and landed off the approach without landing clearance. It seems that the FAA is asking too much of their controllers especially in the evening and on wkends when they combine position and/or sectors. I think this is especially true with local/ground and the further you get from the airport ie. Approach departure then center, the less the impact of reduced manning. It would seem to be prudent to insure that manning levels are maintained at a level consistent with safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG PERFORMS LNDG WITHOUT CLRNC.

Narrative: WHILE ON APCH INTO TULSA INTL, WE WERE WORKING WITH TULSA APCH. THE CTLR WAS ALSO WORKING DEP AND SEEMED VERY BUSY. TO COMPLICATE MATTERS SHE WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH A CIVILIAN SINGLE ENG ACFT THAT SEEMED TO BE LOST. IN THE CONFUSION I BELIEVE THE TWR CTLR FORGOT TO SWITCH US TO LCL (TWR). I FAILED TO REQUEST THE FREQ CHANGE AND LANDED OFF THE APCH WITHOUT LNDG CLRNC. IT SEEMS THAT THE FAA IS ASKING TOO MUCH OF THEIR CTLRS ESPECIALLY IN THE EVENING AND ON WKENDS WHEN THEY COMBINE POS AND/OR SECTORS. I THINK THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE WITH LCL/GND AND THE FURTHER YOU GET FROM THE ARPT IE. APCH DEP THEN CTR, THE LESS THE IMPACT OF REDUCED MANNING. IT WOULD SEEM TO BE PRUDENT TO INSURE THAT MANNING LEVELS ARE MAINTAINED AT A LEVEL CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY.

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.