Narrative:

Aircraft X was issued and accepted an approach clearance for the RNAV visual to runway 26R and was on the RNAV track on the downwind. Aircraft Y was on base leg being vectored to follow aircraft X. I had vectored aircraft Y away from the RNAV arc to ensure separation. Aircraft X did not turn on the arc and continued downwind so I instructed aircraft X to turn right immediately heading 200 and issued traffic. I then reissued a 210 heading and reissued the traffic. The pilot replied and said they were looking. I then issued traffic to aircraft Y and they reported traffic insight so I instructed them to maintain visual separation. After both aircraft were on final and cleared I asked aircraft X if they noticed that they had not made the turn on the arc. The pilot responded they did and were making a turn. The operations manager told me that the pilot later said that they did not have the waypoints in the FMS but I am not sure how this affects whether or no the aircraft turns when they are supposed to. The first recommendation would be to not have base leg traffic while conducting RNAV visual approaches. Secondly; altitude separation would alleviate the safety concern however the altitude of both aircraft was 6;000 ft and that was the altitude issued to the base leg traffic from the previous position and the downwind traffic did not descend fast enough to ensure altitude separation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ900 flight crew and the Controller involved; describe an RNAV Visual Runway 26R approach clearance at ATL that does not go according to plan. Not all required waypoints are displayed when the crew selects the procedure in the FMC database.

Narrative: Aircraft X was issued and accepted an approach clearance for the RNAV visual to Runway 26R and was on the RNAV track on the downwind. Aircraft Y was on base leg being vectored to follow Aircraft X. I had vectored Aircraft Y away from the RNAV arc to ensure separation. Aircraft X did not turn on the arc and continued downwind so I instructed Aircraft X to turn right immediately heading 200 and issued traffic. I then reissued a 210 heading and reissued the traffic. The pilot replied and said they were looking. I then issued traffic to Aircraft Y and they reported traffic insight so I instructed them to maintain visual separation. After both aircraft were on final and cleared I asked Aircraft X if they noticed that they had not made the turn on the arc. The pilot responded they did and were making a turn. The Operations Manager told me that the pilot later said that they did not have the waypoints in the FMS but I am not sure how this affects whether or no the aircraft turns when they are supposed to. The first recommendation would be to not have base leg traffic while conducting RNAV visual approaches. Secondly; altitude separation would alleviate the safety concern however the altitude of both aircraft was 6;000 FT and that was the altitude issued to the base leg traffic from the previous position and the downwind traffic did not descend fast enough to ensure altitude separation.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.