Narrative:

We were 'cleared for the visual runway 26L, atl, maintain 160 KTS to the marker.' as we continued the approach, we could see the traffic ahead of us had reduced to 3 mi separation and distance was closing rapidly. Unable to contact ATC due to frequency congestion, I began slowing the aircraft to approach speed of approximately 140 KTS. About 30 seconds later, ATC asked our speed, then immediately assigned us a heading of 360 degrees and a climb to 4000 ft due to an aircraft overtaking us. As we climbed off the approach course it became obvious that the controller had not given enough spacing between the aircraft ahead of us and was trying to infer our reduction in speed was somehow to blame. On the following approach we were once again cleared for the visual runway 26L. This time, however, after our previous experience with this particular controller, we requested the full ILS runway 26L and were cleared for the ILS runway 26L approach. On this approach, just as we started our turn to intercept the localizer, we received an RA to descend approximately 1400 FPM. We had visual contact on what we thought was the traffic (he was on approach to the parallel runway) but just in case, I followed the TCASII commands and we notified ATC of the RA. The rest of the flight continued uneventful. I realize atl is a busy airport, but I feel this controller is sacrificing safety in an effort to handle peak traffic. I also feel frequency congestion at atl is a problem. Supplemental information from acn 430341: we had a TCASII display that looked different out the front windscreen. We had 2 targets at 3 NM and closing -- both on the approach. We had traffic following us on the approach but TCASII showed it not to be a factor. However, the controller said there was inadequate spacing -- we should have maintained 160 KTS and broke us out of the pattern, heading 360 degrees at 4000 ft. It appeared to us that we got squeezed out of the pattern since we were not going to overrun the traffic at our 12 O'clock position and 2 1/2 NM. I don't believe he anticipated the traffic in front of us to slow so abruptly -- and it was convenient to break us out. On the next approach were cleared for the visual -- we refused and asked for the ILS. On the intercept heading to the localizer (just starting to join) we had traffic joining 'a' final from the left side. We talked about our options just before TCASII TA and RA. We deviated right of the final and descended approximately 400 ft, reported it to the controller, who responded that the aircraft was on the approach to the south complex.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR ACFT FINDS THAT IT IS OVERTAKING ANOTHER ON APCH TO RWY 26L AT ATL. AFTER IT SLOWS TO PROVIDE SOME SPACING, APCH CTL TAKES THEM OFF THE APCH, INSINUATING THAT IT WAS THEIR FAULT FOR SLOWING AND THAT OVERTAKING TFC WAS A FACTOR.

Narrative: WE WERE 'CLRED FOR THE VISUAL RWY 26L, ATL, MAINTAIN 160 KTS TO THE MARKER.' AS WE CONTINUED THE APCH, WE COULD SEE THE TFC AHEAD OF US HAD REDUCED TO 3 MI SEPARATION AND DISTANCE WAS CLOSING RAPIDLY. UNABLE TO CONTACT ATC DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION, I BEGAN SLOWING THE ACFT TO APCH SPD OF APPROX 140 KTS. ABOUT 30 SECONDS LATER, ATC ASKED OUR SPD, THEN IMMEDIATELY ASSIGNED US A HDG OF 360 DEGS AND A CLB TO 4000 FT DUE TO AN ACFT OVERTAKING US. AS WE CLBED OFF THE APCH COURSE IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE CTLR HAD NOT GIVEN ENOUGH SPACING BTWN THE ACFT AHEAD OF US AND WAS TRYING TO INFER OUR REDUCTION IN SPD WAS SOMEHOW TO BLAME. ON THE FOLLOWING APCH WE WERE ONCE AGAIN CLRED FOR THE VISUAL RWY 26L. THIS TIME, HOWEVER, AFTER OUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PARTICULAR CTLR, WE REQUESTED THE FULL ILS RWY 26L AND WERE CLRED FOR THE ILS RWY 26L APCH. ON THIS APCH, JUST AS WE STARTED OUR TURN TO INTERCEPT THE LOC, WE RECEIVED AN RA TO DSND APPROX 1400 FPM. WE HAD VISUAL CONTACT ON WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE TFC (HE WAS ON APCH TO THE PARALLEL RWY) BUT JUST IN CASE, I FOLLOWED THE TCASII COMMANDS AND WE NOTIFIED ATC OF THE RA. THE REST OF THE FLT CONTINUED UNEVENTFUL. I REALIZE ATL IS A BUSY ARPT, BUT I FEEL THIS CTLR IS SACRIFICING SAFETY IN AN EFFORT TO HANDLE PEAK TFC. I ALSO FEEL FREQ CONGESTION AT ATL IS A PROB. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 430341: WE HAD A TCASII DISPLAY THAT LOOKED DIFFERENT OUT THE FRONT WINDSCREEN. WE HAD 2 TARGETS AT 3 NM AND CLOSING -- BOTH ON THE APCH. WE HAD TFC FOLLOWING US ON THE APCH BUT TCASII SHOWED IT NOT TO BE A FACTOR. HOWEVER, THE CTLR SAID THERE WAS INADEQUATE SPACING -- WE SHOULD HAVE MAINTAINED 160 KTS AND BROKE US OUT OF THE PATTERN, HDG 360 DEGS AT 4000 FT. IT APPEARED TO US THAT WE GOT SQUEEZED OUT OF THE PATTERN SINCE WE WERE NOT GOING TO OVERRUN THE TFC AT OUR 12 O'CLOCK POS AND 2 1/2 NM. I DON'T BELIEVE HE ANTICIPATED THE TFC IN FRONT OF US TO SLOW SO ABRUPTLY -- AND IT WAS CONVENIENT TO BREAK US OUT. ON THE NEXT APCH WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL -- WE REFUSED AND ASKED FOR THE ILS. ON THE INTERCEPT HDG TO THE LOC (JUST STARTING TO JOIN) WE HAD TFC JOINING 'A' FINAL FROM THE L SIDE. WE TALKED ABOUT OUR OPTIONS JUST BEFORE TCASII TA AND RA. WE DEVIATED R OF THE FINAL AND DSNDED APPROX 400 FT, RPTED IT TO THE CTLR, WHO RESPONDED THAT THE ACFT WAS ON THE APCH TO THE S COMPLEX.

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.