Narrative:

I am writing this because I am concerned that ATC is creating threats using the RNAV arrivals into atl.last minute STAR and runway changes create huge workload for flight crews and increase the chances for flight path errors or FMS programming errors.we were originally on the DIRTY3. We set up for 27L as per the note on the RNAV STAR chart and briefed and checked all the points in the FMS. I briefed that a threat was an ATC runway change and asked that the pm change the FMS and I would keep flying in case that happened.on the DIRTY3; while descending and using the radar to look for weather we were given direct to evule and fly the EVULE1.I asked the pm to ask ATC for a vector for evule; but he did not and found the STAR in the database and set me up in LNAV direct to evule. He then continued reprogramming the FMS to change the ILS to 26R as per this NOTAM:!fdc 3/7670 atl fi/T STAR hartsfield-jackson atlanta international; atlanta; GA.evuleone arrival note: landing west expect runway 26R- landing east expect runway 8L.we found the ILS precision runway monitoring (prm) charts in the efb and rebriefed the ILS to 26R.upon checking in with the next TRACON controller he told us runway 27L ILS so we had to re-reprogram; rebrief; do the checklist items again; etc....while we were very close to the final approach course and asking for deviations around weather which ATC was reluctant to give us.I feel that we worked well as a team and accomplished all of our procedures; but the whole approach felt unsafe; rushed and high workload. There is no reason to increase pilot workload like this to the point that it becomes unsafe.recommendations:1. Atl TRACON: find a way to make sure ATC does not change stars after an aircraft has already begun to fly another STAR. A better alternative from the flight deck perspective is to revert to pre-RNAV days and just vector the aircraft where you need it to be.2. Allow the ARTCC to assign runways and keep runway changes to a minimum. Under nominal conditions the TRACON assigns the runway too late. If there is a runway other than what the pilots had planned as per the 'expect such and such runway on this RNAV STAR notes and notams' a lot of workload is created and there is too much heads down time and FMS reprogramming errors can happen.3. Provide more procedures and simulator training practice to pilots on what to do when there are last minute STAR and runway changes. I feel that crews are somewhat on their own to manage the high workload created by STAR and runway changes on RNAV stars and as a result PF vs. Pm duties are ambiguous which can lead to both pilots fixing the automation and looking at the efb so nobody is flying the aircraft.4. Provide more flight deck awareness training for atl TRACON. If they know more about how pilots operate aircraft they may understand why ATC should reduce (with the eventual goal of eliminating) STAR and runway changes especially last minute changes (defined as below 18;000 feet). ATC seems like they have a lack of understanding of how the flight deck automation works and the workload imposed on pilots when they change stars and runways at the last minute.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 First Officer reported he is concerned about the safety implications of ATL ATC's propensity for late runway changes that introduce a great deal of workload into the flight deck at a very busy time.

Narrative: I am writing this because I am concerned that ATC is creating threats using the RNAV arrivals into ATL.Last minute STAR and runway changes create huge workload for flight crews and increase the chances for flight path errors or FMS programming errors.We were originally on the DIRTY3. We set up for 27L as per the note on the RNAV STAR chart and briefed and checked all the points in the FMS. I briefed that a threat was an ATC runway change and asked that the PM change the FMS and I would keep flying in case that happened.On the DIRTY3; while descending and using the radar to look for weather we were given direct to EVULE and fly the EVULE1.I asked the PM to ask ATC for a vector for EVULE; but he did not and found the STAR in the database and set me up in LNAV direct to EVULE. He then continued reprogramming the FMS to change the ILS to 26R as per this NOTAM:!FDC 3/7670 ATL FI/T STAR HARTSFIELD-JACKSON ATLANTA INTL; ATLANTA; GA.EVULEONE ARRIVAL NOTE: LANDING WEST EXPECT RWY 26R- LANDING EAST EXPECT RWY 8L.We found the ILS Precision Runway Monitoring (PRM) charts in the EFB and rebriefed the ILS to 26R.Upon checking in with the next TRACON controller he told us runway 27L ILS so we had to re-reprogram; rebrief; do the checklist items again; etc....while we were very close to the final approach course and asking for deviations around weather which ATC was reluctant to give us.I feel that we worked well as a team and accomplished all of our procedures; but the whole approach felt unsafe; rushed and high workload. There is no reason to increase pilot workload like this to the point that it becomes unsafe.Recommendations:1. ATL TRACON: Find a way to make sure ATC does not change STARs after an aircraft has already begun to fly another STAR. A better alternative from the flight deck perspective is to revert to pre-RNAV days and just vector the aircraft where you need it to be.2. Allow the ARTCC to assign runways and keep runway changes to a minimum. Under nominal conditions the TRACON assigns the runway too late. If there is a runway other than what the pilots had planned as per the 'expect such and such runway on this RNAV STAR notes and NOTAMs' a lot of workload is created and there is too much heads down time and FMS reprogramming errors can happen.3. Provide more procedures and simulator training practice to pilots on what to do when there are last minute STAR and runway changes. I feel that crews are somewhat on their own to manage the high workload created by STAR and runway changes on RNAV STARs and as a result PF vs. PM duties are ambiguous which can lead to both pilots fixing the automation and looking at the EFB so nobody is flying the aircraft.4. Provide more flight deck awareness training for ATL TRACON. If they know more about how pilots operate aircraft they may understand why ATC should reduce (with the eventual goal of eliminating) STAR and runway changes especially last minute changes (defined as below 18;000 feet). ATC seems like they have a lack of understanding of how the flight deck automation works and the workload imposed on pilots when they change STARs and runways at the last minute.

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.