Narrative:

Flight was being vectored by atl approach control for an approach and landing on runway 26R. WX was good, but very hazy. The first officer was flying. The altitude dscnts after leaving the macey STAR were all issued late or delayed for unknown reasons: to 8000 ft, then 6000 ft, then 5000 ft, finally to 2800 ft with instructions to report the field in sight. The controller delays in issuing descent clrncs put the aircraft high and behind schedule appropriate to an approach and landing on runway 26R. At this point, I was unclr as to what would happen next. Having landed in atl within the last 6 months whereby I was brought in similarly and then vectored east while descending, followed by a right base, and then to intercept the final approach course for runway 26R, I had this scenario in mind. The controller never said our 'sequence,' nor her intentions, so when she gave the final vector to intercept and report the field in sight, I was surprised, primarily due to the altitude, which was inappropriate for making an approach and landing on runway 26R at that point. At that point we approached 'abeam' the OM, just leaving 5000 ft, we still did not see the runway due to haze. The first officer was flying and had the airplane slowed up appropriately and anticipatorily, despite the late dscnts given by approach control. The final vector (240 degrees to intercept as I recall) came about the time that all 3 pilots saw our relationship to the runway, which was too high, and the controller must have sensed something was a bit wrong, too, as she asked if we needed a vector to get down. It was a busy time for us as we initially tried to salvage the approach, put the landing gear down, increased the speed break deployment, etc. I recall responding to ATC 'we're pretty high,' at which point the controller said to fly a 180 degree heading. The controller also responded with 'sorry about that.' we were passing through the runway 26R localizer by now, and that did not seem like a prudent thing to do. About this time, I noticed our approach overhead a B757 well beneath us lined up with runway 27L. The first officer stated that we should go around. I concurred, and he proceeded with the go around procedure. As he applied power, I stowed the speed brakes. Our flaps were 20 degrees at the time, and we raised the gear. Since there was quick discussion in the cockpit about the heading which would put us into the approach path of the parallel runways, and we also began a turn back toward our own runway. During the initial phase of the go around procedure after spotting the B757 below us, we heard a TCASII TA momentarily, this was probably due to our sink rate at the time. It was not an RA, it was a TA only. Based on my visual estimation only, I do not believe we were ever closer than 1000 ft separation. (The TA was momentarily only.) I immediately told ATC that we were going around because we were too high. A new controller had taken over, and asked me what heading I was on, and I responded something like 290 degrees. He said that was fine, and then to turn right to 360 degrees, climb to 4000 ft. We complied, and re-entered another right downwind for runway 26R, where we were first in sequence for the approach. A few more vectors and a normal approach and landing were made on runway 26R. No further mention of any of this was made by any ATC controller. Hindsight would have made me more aggressive in my questioning of the controller's intentions with keeping us high and delaying the descent clrncs, as well as obtaining our vectoring or approach sequencing. The go around and turn back toward the original runway alignment was a prudent maneuver which seemed to meet ATC's satisfaction as well. My other crew members performed their duties in a very satisfactory manner during this event. I have no intentions of pursuing any of this further, and have filed this NASA report in the interest of safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767 CREW WAS REQUIRED TO EXECUTE A GAR DUE TO BEING TOO HIGH FOR THE APCH.

Narrative: FLT WAS BEING VECTORED BY ATL APCH CTL FOR AN APCH AND LNDG ON RWY 26R. WX WAS GOOD, BUT VERY HAZY. THE FO WAS FLYING. THE ALT DSCNTS AFTER LEAVING THE MACEY STAR WERE ALL ISSUED LATE OR DELAYED FOR UNKNOWN REASONS: TO 8000 FT, THEN 6000 FT, THEN 5000 FT, FINALLY TO 2800 FT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO RPT THE FIELD IN SIGHT. THE CTLR DELAYS IN ISSUING DSCNT CLRNCS PUT THE ACFT HIGH AND BEHIND SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO AN APCH AND LNDG ON RWY 26R. AT THIS POINT, I WAS UNCLR AS TO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT. HAVING LANDED IN ATL WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS WHEREBY I WAS BROUGHT IN SIMILARLY AND THEN VECTORED E WHILE DSNDING, FOLLOWED BY A R BASE, AND THEN TO INTERCEPT THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR RWY 26R, I HAD THIS SCENARIO IN MIND. THE CTLR NEVER SAID OUR 'SEQUENCE,' NOR HER INTENTIONS, SO WHEN SHE GAVE THE FINAL VECTOR TO INTERCEPT AND RPT THE FIELD IN SIGHT, I WAS SURPRISED, PRIMARILY DUE TO THE ALT, WHICH WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR MAKING AN APCH AND LNDG ON RWY 26R AT THAT POINT. AT THAT POINT WE APCHED 'ABEAM' THE OM, JUST LEAVING 5000 FT, WE STILL DID NOT SEE THE RWY DUE TO HAZE. THE FO WAS FLYING AND HAD THE AIRPLANE SLOWED UP APPROPRIATELY AND ANTICIPATORILY, DESPITE THE LATE DSCNTS GIVEN BY APCH CTL. THE FINAL VECTOR (240 DEGS TO INTERCEPT AS I RECALL) CAME ABOUT THE TIME THAT ALL 3 PLTS SAW OUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE RWY, WHICH WAS TOO HIGH, AND THE CTLR MUST HAVE SENSED SOMETHING WAS A BIT WRONG, TOO, AS SHE ASKED IF WE NEEDED A VECTOR TO GET DOWN. IT WAS A BUSY TIME FOR US AS WE INITIALLY TRIED TO SALVAGE THE APCH, PUT THE LNDG GEAR DOWN, INCREASED THE SPD BREAK DEPLOYMENT, ETC. I RECALL RESPONDING TO ATC 'WE'RE PRETTY HIGH,' AT WHICH POINT THE CTLR SAID TO FLY A 180 DEG HDG. THE CTLR ALSO RESPONDED WITH 'SORRY ABOUT THAT.' WE WERE PASSING THROUGH THE RWY 26R LOC BY NOW, AND THAT DID NOT SEEM LIKE A PRUDENT THING TO DO. ABOUT THIS TIME, I NOTICED OUR APCH OVERHEAD A B757 WELL BENEATH US LINED UP WITH RWY 27L. THE FO STATED THAT WE SHOULD GO AROUND. I CONCURRED, AND HE PROCEEDED WITH THE GAR PROC. AS HE APPLIED PWR, I STOWED THE SPD BRAKES. OUR FLAPS WERE 20 DEGS AT THE TIME, AND WE RAISED THE GEAR. SINCE THERE WAS QUICK DISCUSSION IN THE COCKPIT ABOUT THE HEADING WHICH WOULD PUT US INTO THE APCH PATH OF THE PARALLEL RWYS, AND WE ALSO BEGAN A TURN BACK TOWARD OUR OWN RWY. DURING THE INITIAL PHASE OF THE GAR PROC AFTER SPOTTING THE B757 BELOW US, WE HEARD A TCASII TA MOMENTARILY, THIS WAS PROBABLY DUE TO OUR SINK RATE AT THE TIME. IT WAS NOT AN RA, IT WAS A TA ONLY. BASED ON MY VISUAL ESTIMATION ONLY, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WERE EVER CLOSER THAN 1000 FT SEPARATION. (THE TA WAS MOMENTARILY ONLY.) I IMMEDIATELY TOLD ATC THAT WE WERE GOING AROUND BECAUSE WE WERE TOO HIGH. A NEW CTLR HAD TAKEN OVER, AND ASKED ME WHAT HEADING I WAS ON, AND I RESPONDED SOMETHING LIKE 290 DEGS. HE SAID THAT WAS FINE, AND THEN TO TURN R TO 360 DEGS, CLB TO 4000 FT. WE COMPLIED, AND RE-ENTERED ANOTHER R DOWNWIND FOR RWY 26R, WHERE WE WERE FIRST IN SEQUENCE FOR THE APCH. A FEW MORE VECTORS AND A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG WERE MADE ON RWY 26R. NO FURTHER MENTION OF ANY OF THIS WAS MADE BY ANY ATC CTLR. HINDSIGHT WOULD HAVE MADE ME MORE AGGRESSIVE IN MY QUESTIONING OF THE CTLR'S INTENTIONS WITH KEEPING US HIGH AND DELAYING THE DSCNT CLRNCS, AS WELL AS OBTAINING OUR VECTORING OR APCH SEQUENCING. THE GAR AND TURN BACK TOWARD THE ORIGINAL RWY ALIGNMENT WAS A PRUDENT MANEUVER WHICH SEEMED TO MEET ATC'S SATISFACTION AS WELL. MY OTHER CREW MEMBERS PERFORMED THEIR DUTIES IN A VERY SATISFACTORY MANNER DURING THIS EVENT. I HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF PURSUING ANY OF THIS FURTHER, AND HAVE FILED THIS NASA RPT IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY.

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.