Narrative:

First officer flying. Approach control very busy. First time in area for all crew members. At 7000 ft and within 10 NM of field (3 NM) we were cleared for the approach (visual) to runway 25. We were in no position to land from that altitude, so we had to turn away from the field while configuring for landing and continuing descent. We turned back and were still a little high (back course localizer runway 25 out of service), so crew concentration was on safe approach. All aboard thought approach control had cleared us to land as well. We were still monitoring approach control frequency. After touchdown, approach control cleared us to land (again?). Now all of us were questioning whether we had clearance or not. Possible causes: crew unfamiliar with area and procedures. Busy approach control lost track of us while outbound for reversal. High and tight (slam-dunk) clearance for visual approach. Also, crew distraction throughout most of flight by company policies and repeated contract violations while negotiating new contract -- underlying tensions about possible strike. This distraction has existed for months. Possible solutions: better initial vectoring (we could only have landed from point of approach clearance if we were 6000 ft lower). Reduce controller workload to prevent losing aircraft and not switching to tower frequency.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 FLC LWOC AT PHF, VA.

Narrative: FO FLYING. APCH CTL VERY BUSY. FIRST TIME IN AREA FOR ALL CREW MEMBERS. AT 7000 FT AND WITHIN 10 NM OF FIELD (3 NM) WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH (VISUAL) TO RWY 25. WE WERE IN NO POS TO LAND FROM THAT ALT, SO WE HAD TO TURN AWAY FROM THE FIELD WHILE CONFIGURING FOR LNDG AND CONTINUING DSCNT. WE TURNED BACK AND WERE STILL A LITTLE HIGH (BACK COURSE LOC RWY 25 OUT OF SVC), SO CREW CONCENTRATION WAS ON SAFE APCH. ALL ABOARD THOUGHT APCH CTL HAD CLRED US TO LAND AS WELL. WE WERE STILL MONITORING APCH CTL FREQ. AFTER TOUCHDOWN, APCH CTL CLRED US TO LAND (AGAIN?). NOW ALL OF US WERE QUESTIONING WHETHER WE HAD CLRNC OR NOT. POSSIBLE CAUSES: CREW UNFAMILIAR WITH AREA AND PROCS. BUSY APCH CTL LOST TRACK OF US WHILE OUTBOUND FOR REVERSAL. HIGH AND TIGHT (SLAM-DUNK) CLRNC FOR VISUAL APCH. ALSO, CREW DISTR THROUGHOUT MOST OF FLT BY COMPANY POLICIES AND REPEATED CONTRACT VIOLATIONS WHILE NEGOTIATING NEW CONTRACT -- UNDERLYING TENSIONS ABOUT POSSIBLE STRIKE. THIS DISTR HAS EXISTED FOR MONTHS. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: BETTER INITIAL VECTORING (WE COULD ONLY HAVE LANDED FROM POINT OF APCH CLRNC IF WE WERE 6000 FT LOWER). REDUCE CTLR WORKLOAD TO PREVENT LOSING ACFT AND NOT SWITCHING TO TWR FREQ.

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.