Narrative:

This is a problem that has increased in frequency as air traffic has increased into busy terminals. On arrival with atlanta approach we were advised that we were on vectors to a left downwind for the ILS approach to runway 27L and atl. The aircrew briefed this approach; and set up the navaids. Atlanta weather was 22 overcast; 3 miles visibility. We were not vectored off the honie arrival STAR and thus ended up on a right downwind on the north side of the airport which would be more conveniently aligned with runway 26R. The approach controller then advised us that were on vectors to ILS runway 26R. When handed off to the arrival frequency the controller was not expecting us on his frequency and sent us back to approach control who kept us for the rest of the approach. I suspect that the controllers were not talking to each other for the handoff. After we returned to the original atlanta approach controller; our runway was changed to ILS runway 27L and we rebriefed and set the navaids for that runway again. On turn to base we were advised to cross ajaay at 2;800 feet and intercept the localizer. The proper point on ILS runway 27L would have been depot at 2;800 feet. I pointed this out to the controller as we were on base turn approaching the runway 26R localizer course and the controller confirmed that she wanted us to intercept the runway 26R localizer. We told her that we would need vectors back to final since we were set up for the runway 27L approach. She requested we could do the runway 27L approach instead which we finally did. My point in all this is it is becoming far too common that runways are changed several times and at the last minute; when it obviously doesn't even matter for traffic (otherwise there would have been no flexibility in which approach we could finish in this instance). Pilots should either refuse more of these changes or ATC should be more sensitive to the requirements of approach briefing; especially in less than VMC weather. No major problems occurred this time; but it was a real scramble to set up and re-set up each time a change occurred. And if there had been conflicting traffic we may not have had enough time to make the changes without a deviation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-800 FLT CREW RPTS SEVERAL LAST MINUTE RWY ASSIGNMENT CHANGES IN LAST FEW MINS OF APCH TO ATL.

Narrative: THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT HAS INCREASED IN FREQUENCY AS AIR TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED INTO BUSY TERMINALS. ON ARR WITH ATLANTA APCH WE WERE ADVISED THAT WE WERE ON VECTORS TO A LEFT DOWNWIND FOR THE ILS APCH TO RWY 27L AND ATL. THE AIRCREW BRIEFED THIS APCH; AND SET UP THE NAVAIDS. ATLANTA WEATHER WAS 22 OVERCAST; 3 MILES VISIBILITY. WE WERE NOT VECTORED OFF THE HONIE ARR STAR AND THUS ENDED UP ON A RIGHT DOWNWIND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE AIRPORT WHICH WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENTLY ALIGNED WITH RWY 26R. THE APCH CTLR THEN ADVISED US THAT WERE ON VECTORS TO ILS RWY 26R. WHEN HANDED OFF TO THE ARR FREQUENCY THE CTLR WAS NOT EXPECTING US ON HIS FREQ AND SENT US BACK TO APCH CONTROL WHO KEPT US FOR THE REST OF THE APCH. I SUSPECT THAT THE CTLRS WERE NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER FOR THE HANDOFF. AFTER WE RETURNED TO THE ORIGINAL ATLANTA APCH CTLR; OUR RWY WAS CHANGED TO ILS RWY 27L AND WE REBRIEFED AND SET THE NAVAIDS FOR THAT RWY AGAIN. ON TURN TO BASE WE WERE ADVISED TO CROSS AJAAY AT 2;800 FEET AND INTERCEPT THE LOCALIZER. THE PROPER POINT ON ILS RWY 27L WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOT AT 2;800 FEET. I POINTED THIS OUT TO THE CTLR AS WE WERE ON BASE TURN APCHING THE RWY 26R LOCALIZER COURSE AND THE CTLR CONFIRMED THAT SHE WANTED US TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 26R LOCALIZER. WE TOLD HER THAT WE WOULD NEED VECTORS BACK TO FINAL SINCE WE WERE SET UP FOR THE RWY 27L APCH. SHE REQUESTED WE COULD DO THE RWY 27L APCH INSTEAD WHICH WE FINALLY DID. MY POINT IN ALL THIS IS IT IS BECOMING FAR TOO COMMON THAT RWYS ARE CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES AND AT THE LAST MINUTE; WHEN IT OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T EVEN MATTER FOR TRAFFIC (OTHERWISE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FLEXIBILITY IN WHICH APCH WE COULD FINISH IN THIS INSTANCE). PILOTS SHOULD EITHER REFUSE MORE OF THESE CHANGES OR ATC SHOULD BE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF APCH BRIEFING; ESPECIALLY IN LESS THAN VMC WEATHER. NO MAJOR PROBLEMS OCCURRED THIS TIME; BUT IT WAS A REAL SCRAMBLE TO SET UP AND RE-SET UP EACH TIME A CHANGE OCCURRED. AND IF THERE HAD BEEN CONFLICTING TRAFFIC WE MAY NOT HAVE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO MAKE THE CHANGES WITHOUT A DEVIATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.