Narrative:

On base leg to runway 8L at atl (90 degree intercept angle). I was PF. There was a squeal on the approach frequency that went unanswered. Approximately 10 seconds later, as we were starting to intercept the localizer (not yet cleared for any type of approach) approach control asked us if we were intercepting. Captain replied 'affirmative' and told me to bank it on over. I executed a 30 degree bank, but still was not able to intercept before crossing into the approach path for runway 9L. We were then cleared for a visual approach. Complicating factors were: 1) atl approach keeps aircraft on a very tight downwind and base, which leaves little room for error or miscom. 2) this was our last and final of 3 consecutive 'stand-ups' (reduced rest overnights) and we were both tired and eager to get home. 3) it was hazy enough outside to prevent seeing the airport clearly from 10-12 mi out, but still clear enough to issue visual approachs. I feel that approach control needs to give a slightly larger downwind at atl and needs to realize that a large jet shouldn't stay on a 90 degree intercept for long. If they would just take us a few mi further out, they could issue the following clearance and be done with it. (Suggested: 'XXX, turn left heading 060 degrees, intercept the runway 8L localizer, report airport in sight.') this would eliminate the kind of problem we encountered.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR RECEIVES NO APCH CLRNC AND CROSSES LOC BEFORE BEING CLRED FOR VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: ON BASE LEG TO RWY 8L AT ATL (90 DEG INTERCEPT ANGLE). I WAS PF. THERE WAS A SQUEAL ON THE APCH FREQ THAT WENT UNANSWERED. APPROX 10 SECONDS LATER, AS WE WERE STARTING TO INTERCEPT THE LOC (NOT YET CLRED FOR ANY TYPE OF APCH) APCH CTL ASKED US IF WE WERE INTERCEPTING. CAPT REPLIED 'AFFIRMATIVE' AND TOLD ME TO BANK IT ON OVER. I EXECUTED A 30 DEG BANK, BUT STILL WAS NOT ABLE TO INTERCEPT BEFORE XING INTO THE APCH PATH FOR RWY 9L. WE WERE THEN CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH. COMPLICATING FACTORS WERE: 1) ATL APCH KEEPS ACFT ON A VERY TIGHT DOWNWIND AND BASE, WHICH LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR ERROR OR MISCOM. 2) THIS WAS OUR LAST AND FINAL OF 3 CONSECUTIVE 'STAND-UPS' (REDUCED REST OVERNIGHTS) AND WE WERE BOTH TIRED AND EAGER TO GET HOME. 3) IT WAS HAZY ENOUGH OUTSIDE TO PREVENT SEEING THE ARPT CLRLY FROM 10-12 MI OUT, BUT STILL CLR ENOUGH TO ISSUE VISUAL APCHS. I FEEL THAT APCH CTL NEEDS TO GIVE A SLIGHTLY LARGER DOWNWIND AT ATL AND NEEDS TO REALIZE THAT A LARGE JET SHOULDN'T STAY ON A 90 DEG INTERCEPT FOR LONG. IF THEY WOULD JUST TAKE US A FEW MI FURTHER OUT, THEY COULD ISSUE THE FOLLOWING CLRNC AND BE DONE WITH IT. (SUGGESTED: 'XXX, TURN L HDG 060 DEGS, INTERCEPT THE RWY 8L LOC, RPT ARPT IN SIGHT.') THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE KIND OF PROB WE ENCOUNTERED.

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.