Narrative:

ATC created an increased workload due to multiple ATC created threats while approaching atl in the early morning following a red-eye flight. Recommend atlanta TRACON works to reduce the occurrence of these threats to pilots by increased training in how their control actions affect pilot workload and flight safety. We were on the koltt 1 RNAV STAR. The NOTAM says east flow expect runway 9R. We set up 9R in the FMS; ILS and briefed the arrival; approach and taxi plan for 9R. I also briefed 8L too because the NOTAM is not followed much of the time and atl gives pilots last minute runway changes. ARTCC gave us a last minute shortcut on the STAR direct to erlin and then shipped us to the TRACON. When we checked in with atl TRACON and they told us to expect runway 8L so we had to set up the flight deck automation for 8L. We were descending after passing the last STAR waypoint (strmm) when we were given direct to the FAF schel and cleared for the visual approach after calling the field in sight. Our speed was still 250 and ATC did not slow us down. I was reluctant to slow because one of our crews was violated for slowing down on their own while approaching the final approach course in atl. As we were approaching the FAF and still needed to slow down and go down I was used the speed brakes and slowed to 230 to put in the first flap setting.while approaching schel and reaching 2;900 ft ATC asked us if we had the 757 traffic in sight and that there was a 60 knot overtake. This was the first mention of traffic. And it looked to us like ATC had cut us off by sticking another 8L arrival right in front of us. We had to scramble to slow down by dropping the gear early and slowing back to our final speed early. Our job was made more difficult because our TCAS display stopped working and we could not see the range of our traffic on the TCAS display which would have helped us with spacing. ATC greatly increased our workload and made what should have been a 'boring' approach very workload intensive which reduced safety margins.specific ATC threats that increased our workload were:1) late runway assignment (different from the NOTAM guidance)2) shortcut vectors on the STAR while we were descending in VNAV to meet a crossing restriction (erlin at 250 knots; 10;000ft)3) direct to the FAF in atl without slowing us down4) sequencing traffic very close to us unexpectedly without warning which was 60 knots slower than us as we approach the FAF ATC should have slowed us down and given us a heads up if they are going to put a plane ahead of us that close to us on final. Additionally; some consistency regarding speed instructions is needed in atl. Specifically; if ATC is going to violate crews for slowing down on their own; then every flight needs to be slowed down explicitly by the TRACON. When a controller gets mad at crew for slowing down on their own and then that crew gets violated; don't expect other crews to slow down early on their own.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 First Officer reported he was concerned with ATC procedures on arrival into ATL that increased workload.

Narrative: ATC created an increased workload due to multiple ATC created threats while approaching ATL in the early morning following a red-eye flight. Recommend Atlanta TRACON works to reduce the occurrence of these threats to pilots by increased training in how their control actions affect pilot workload and flight safety. We were on the KOLTT 1 RNAV STAR. The NOTAM says East flow expect runway 9R. We set up 9R in the FMS; ILS and briefed the arrival; approach and taxi plan for 9R. I also briefed 8L too because the NOTAM is not followed much of the time and ATL gives pilots last minute runway changes. ARTCC gave us a last minute shortcut on the STAR direct to ERLIN and then shipped us to the TRACON. When we checked in with ATL TRACON and they told us to expect runway 8L so we had to set up the flight deck automation for 8L. We were descending after passing the last STAR waypoint (STRMM) when we were given direct to the FAF SCHEL and cleared for the visual approach after calling the field in sight. Our speed was still 250 and ATC did not slow us down. I was reluctant to slow because one of our crews was violated for slowing down on their own while approaching the final approach course in ATL. As we were approaching the FAF and still needed to slow down and go down I was used the speed brakes and slowed to 230 to put in the first flap setting.While approaching SCHEL and reaching 2;900 ft ATC asked us if we had the 757 traffic in sight and that there was a 60 knot overtake. This was the first mention of traffic. And it looked to us like ATC had cut us off by sticking another 8L arrival right in front of us. We had to scramble to slow down by dropping the gear early and slowing back to our final speed early. Our job was made more difficult because our TCAS display stopped working and we could not see the range of our traffic on the TCAS display which would have helped us with spacing. ATC greatly increased our workload and made what should have been a 'boring' approach very workload intensive which reduced safety margins.Specific ATC threats that increased our workload were:1) late runway assignment (different from the NOTAM guidance)2) shortcut vectors on the STAR while we were descending in VNAV to meet a crossing restriction (ERLIN at 250 knots; 10;000ft)3) direct to the FAF in ATL without slowing us down4) sequencing traffic very close to us unexpectedly without warning which was 60 knots slower than us as we approach the FAF ATC should have slowed us down and given us a heads up if they are going to put a plane ahead of us that close to us on final. Additionally; some consistency regarding speed instructions is needed in ATL. Specifically; if ATC is going to violate crews for slowing down on their own; then every flight needs to be slowed down explicitly by the TRACON. When a controller gets mad at crew for slowing down on their own and then that crew gets violated; don't expect other crews to slow down early on their own.

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.