A B737-400 flight crew landed without a clearance at sfo.

Attributes
ACN	452371
Time
Date	199910
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sfo.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Weather Elements	other
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sfo.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-400
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	landing : roll
Route In Use	approach : visual approach : instrument precision
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : sfo.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	A340
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : multi engine pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial pilot : cfi pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 10000 flight time type : 7000
ASRS Report	452371
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument pilot : multi engine
Events
Anomaly	incursion : landing without clearance non adherence : clearance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other flight crewa other flight crewb
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We were on big sur 2 arrival, plan tipp toe visual runway 28L approach. Approximately menlo intersection, traffic was given (A340) on visual runway 28R. We acknowledged traffic in sight. Approach gave us vector to intercept localizer call san mateo bridge or airport in sight for runway visual runway 28L. We stayed slightly left (south) of localizer since the A340 crossed the runway 28R centerline (or appeared to) and came approximately 600 ft to our aircraft. We called airport in sight approximately 3 NM final and were cleared for visual runway 28L maintain visual with the airbus. We were never handed off to tower and due to our vigilance in watching the airbus maneuver the localizer, we failed to contact tower until 1 NM final. We made 3 call attempts with no response. The airbus was too high on profile to make the airport so they went around about this same time. The tower was most likely consumed with coordination with approach regarding the airbus they were unable to respond. We landed without landing clearance. After considering a go around, we elected to land for safety reasons: 1) the visibility was poor with haze. We were uncertain we could keep the airbus in sight at all times. 2) the airbus appeared to be disoriented during the visual approach. We were concerned about what his missed approach track might be. 3) with the volume of traffic on the frequency we felt approach control and tower would prefer that we were on the ground.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-400 FLC LANDED WITHOUT A CLRNC AT SFO.

Narrative: WE WERE ON BIG SUR 2 ARR, PLAN TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L APCH. APPROX MENLO INTXN, TFC WAS GIVEN (A340) ON VISUAL RWY 28R. WE ACKNOWLEDGED TFC IN SIGHT. APCH GAVE US VECTOR TO INTERCEPT LOC CALL SAN MATEO BRIDGE OR ARPT IN SIGHT FOR RWY VISUAL RWY 28L. WE STAYED SLIGHTLY L (S) OF LOC SINCE THE A340 CROSSED THE RWY 28R CTRLINE (OR APPEARED TO) AND CAME APPROX 600 FT TO OUR ACFT. WE CALLED ARPT IN SIGHT APPROX 3 NM FINAL AND WERE CLRED FOR VISUAL RWY 28L MAINTAIN VISUAL WITH THE AIRBUS. WE WERE NEVER HANDED OFF TO TWR AND DUE TO OUR VIGILANCE IN WATCHING THE AIRBUS MANEUVER THE LOC, WE FAILED TO CONTACT TWR UNTIL 1 NM FINAL. WE MADE 3 CALL ATTEMPTS WITH NO RESPONSE. THE AIRBUS WAS TOO HIGH ON PROFILE TO MAKE THE ARPT SO THEY WENT AROUND ABOUT THIS SAME TIME. THE TWR WAS MOST LIKELY CONSUMED WITH COORD WITH APCH REGARDING THE AIRBUS THEY WERE UNABLE TO RESPOND. WE LANDED WITHOUT LNDG CLRNC. AFTER CONSIDERING A GAR, WE ELECTED TO LAND FOR SAFETY REASONS: 1) THE VISIBILITY WAS POOR WITH HAZE. WE WERE UNCERTAIN WE COULD KEEP THE AIRBUS IN SIGHT AT ALL TIMES. 2) THE AIRBUS APPEARED TO BE DISORIENTED DURING THE VISUAL APCH. WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HIS MISSED APCH TRACK MIGHT BE. 3) WITH THE VOLUME OF TFC ON THE FREQ WE FELT APCH CTL AND TWR WOULD PREFER THAT WE WERE ON THE GND.

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.