Narrative:

On downwind following only 6 miles behind a heavy B747; we received bad wake turbulence. We advised ATC of this but they still kept us 6 miles in trail. On the way down during the descent on final approach; we were discussing the probability of discontinuing the approach and because of this high workload and the added stress of the wake and possible wake; I forgot to switch our frequency over to the tower frequency. At approximately 2000-2500 feet we decided to discontinue the approach and begin a go around and it was at this time when I called ATC to let them know we were going around that I realized I was still on approach control frequency. Approach control asked if we were with the tower but I told him no; so he then issued us a climb and heading instructions with which we complied. The approach ATC then vectored us around for another approach and landing without incident. Threats were bad wake turbulence we encountered on downwind and the possibility of encountering more wake as we continued the approach. The error was not switching frequency to tower due to high workload and stress from the possibility of more wake at lower altitudes. It is my opinion that the company should insist that ATC give us way more spacing behind a heavy B747 which is configuring and slowing for approach and landing. This is when that aircraft type becomes a danger to any and all aircraft in trail of it and the spacing must be increased.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-900 Captain reported executing a go-around when 'bad wake turbulence' was encountered on approach to ATL in trail of a B747.

Narrative: On downwind following only 6 miles behind a heavy B747; we received bad wake turbulence. We advised ATC of this but they still kept us 6 miles in trail. On the way down during the descent on final approach; we were discussing the probability of discontinuing the approach and because of this high workload and the added stress of the wake and possible wake; I forgot to switch our frequency over to the tower frequency. At approximately 2000-2500 feet we decided to discontinue the approach and begin a go around and it was at this time when I called ATC to let them know we were going around that I realized I was still on approach control frequency. Approach control asked if we were with the tower but I told him no; so he then issued us a climb and heading instructions with which we complied. The approach ATC then vectored us around for another approach and landing without incident. Threats were bad wake turbulence we encountered on downwind and the possibility of encountering more wake as we continued the approach. The error was not switching frequency to tower due to high workload and stress from the possibility of more wake at lower altitudes. It is my opinion that the company should insist that ATC give us way more spacing behind a heavy B747 which is configuring and slowing for approach and landing. This is when that aircraft type becomes a danger to any and all aircraft in trail of it and the spacing must be increased.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.