An air carrier crew misread the atl prm requirements and believed that the statement under ATIS '(b)...

Attributes
ACN	870389
Time
Date	201001
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	ATL.Airport
State Reference	GA
Environment
Flight Conditions	IMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Component
Aircraft Component	VHF
Person 1
Function	Captain Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Narrative:

During the ILS prm 8L monitor controller asked how we heard on monitor freq. We did not have it tuned in on number 2 radio because on atl chart 11-0 it says in bold type 'monitor frequency no longer required.' in our haste to prepare for the approach we had scanned the page and neglected to take in what context this was to occurred. We immediately tuned it in and checked with ATC that it worked and continued to a normal landing. TRACON told me I was not the first to do that. I believe the printing of these exceptions in bold print physically away from the controlling sentence along with our rush to prepare for the approach caused us to miss a very important line in the text. If that part of the page were not in bold print I probably would not have zeroed in on only that part of the page so intently.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Air Carrier crew misread the ATL PRM requirements and believed that the statement under ATIS '(b) Monitor frequency no longer required' meant that simultaneous monitoring of the second ATC frequency was no longer required. ATC stated otherwise.

Narrative: During the ILS PRM 8L Monitor Controller asked how we heard on monitor freq. We did not have it tuned in on number 2 radio because on ATL chart 11-0 it says in bold type 'monitor frequency no longer required.' In our haste to prepare for the approach we had scanned the page and neglected to take in what context this was to occurred. We immediately tuned it in and checked with ATC that it worked and continued to a normal landing. TRACON told me I was not the first to do that. I believe the printing of these exceptions in bold print physically away from the controlling sentence along with our rush to prepare for the approach caused us to miss a very important line in the text. If that part of the page were not in bold print I probably would not have zeroed in on only that part of the page so intently.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

An air carrier crew misread the atl prm requirements and believed that the statement under ATIS '(b) monitor frequency no longer required' meant that simultaneous monitoring of the second ATC frequency was no longer required. ATC stated otherwise.