Narrative:

During approach to 9R ILS prm into atl we were established on final approach and cleared for the approach at 3000 feet. The localizer on both of our sides flagged red and disappeared. We reported this to ATC. They asked if we could maintain our course line inbound due to traffic. We said yes as we could fly the course from the FMS but not the approach. Our speed assigned was 210. Shortly after about 20 seconds we got the ILS back prior to glideslope intercept. The controller was blocked on a communication and may have told us to slow to 180 but we were not sure. The monitor controller then assigned us 'immediately slow to 150' so we deployed full boards and dropped gear to slow. For some reason the controller did not hear our readback so he gave us another instruction to slow to 150. Once again he did not hear us and told us to respond with an ident. We did and responded on both main and monitor frequency. He assigned us a turn out 20 degrees to right which we complied with. We never heard a traffic alert message; only a vector off of the course and maintain the same altitude. At this point we did not know if we were being removed from the approach or not. We then got an instruction to turn again and vectors for the ILS to 10. I do not know if we had a traffic conflict. I do not know if we missed the speed earlier or not. There was a lot of stepping on errors with regard to voice communication. We returned to land on ILS 10; during which the monitor controller checked us to see if we had communication on the primary and monitor frequency. Mechanical failure of some kind; perhaps a plane passing through localizer signal. This caused distraction and workload. Poor weather prevailed; low minimums almost cat 2. Several double communications from the primary and monitor controller became hard to understand; and perhaps our readbacks being blocked by the urgency of the controllers all contributed to an abandoned approach and possibly a conflict. I don't know if I have any suggestions. We were stable and prepared. The event was unusual with the loss of course. During triple prm approaches the center does not really have an escape route that is known. It was an exceptional event and have not encountered anything like it before doing prm approaches in atlanta many times. I do not have any reasonable explanation why our communications were not being heard except really poor timing with other instructions. The only thing that would have been better would have been for ATC to have taken immediate action to break us out after loss of course.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 flight crew reported communication difficulties on the 9R ILS PRM approach into ATL resulted in a go-around.

Narrative: During approach to 9R ILS PRM into ATL we were established on final approach and cleared for the approach at 3000 feet. The localizer on both of our sides flagged red and disappeared. We reported this to ATC. They asked if we could maintain our course line inbound due to traffic. We said yes as we could fly the course from the FMS but not the approach. Our speed assigned was 210. Shortly after about 20 seconds we got the ILS back prior to glideslope intercept. The Controller was blocked on a communication and may have told us to slow to 180 but we were not sure. The monitor Controller then assigned us 'immediately slow to 150' so we deployed full boards and dropped gear to slow. For some reason the Controller did not hear our readback so he gave us another instruction to slow to 150. Once again he did not hear us and told us to respond with an ident. We did and responded on both main and monitor frequency. He assigned us a turn out 20 degrees to right which we complied with. We never heard a traffic alert message; only a vector off of the course and maintain the same altitude. At this point we did not know if we were being removed from the approach or not. We then got an instruction to turn again and vectors for the ILS to 10. I do not know if we had a traffic conflict. I do not know if we missed the speed earlier or not. There was a lot of stepping on errors with regard to voice communication. We returned to land on ILS 10; during which the monitor Controller checked us to see if we had communication on the primary and monitor frequency. Mechanical failure of some kind; perhaps a plane passing through localizer signal. This caused distraction and workload. Poor weather prevailed; low minimums almost cat 2. Several double communications from the primary and monitor Controller became hard to understand; and perhaps our readbacks being blocked by the urgency of the Controllers all contributed to an abandoned approach and possibly a conflict. I don't know if I have any suggestions. We were stable and prepared. The event was unusual with the loss of course. During triple PRM approaches the Center does not really have an escape route that is known. It was an exceptional event and have not encountered anything like it before doing PRM approaches in Atlanta many times. I do not have any reasonable explanation why our communications were not being heard except really poor timing with other instructions. The only thing that would have been better would have been for ATC to have taken immediate action to break us out after loss of course.

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.