Narrative:

On left base for runway 27L at atl, receiving vectors as normal. Hazy VFR evening at sundown, knowing visibility would be marginal when vectored west for localizer intercept. Atl approach controller had asked us if we saw traffic that he wanted us to follow. We replied 'negative.' soon thereafter, another aircraft reported 'traffic in sight, runway in sight.' and at that time I think he received a clearance for a visual approach to runway 27L. We continued northbound on base leg. We then were given a turn to approximately 340 degrees. We complied. I realized we were going to pass through the localizer rapidly, with no clearance to join it. Congested frequency prevented us from asking the controller. As we passed through the localizer, still on a 340 degree heading, the controller came through in a panicked voice demanding an 'immediate turn to (approximately) 240 degrees to rejoin localizer,' what were we doing? And why didn't we capture and track,' etc. We replied that we were never cleared for the approach. He (controller) said we had accepted the visual approach clearance, which is absolutely wrong. (I believe he mistook us for the aircraft Y that did accept the visual clearance.) we captured the localizer on a southwest heading, flew the approach and landed. Contributing factors: 1) congested frequency made communication difficult. 2) approach controller assumed we accepted a visual clearance, probably because everybody (or most everybody) had accepted that clearance. We did not have the traffic or airport in sight, never did during this whole sequence, and told the controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 CREW LNDG ATL RWY 27L ON VECTOR FOR A VISUAL APCH HAS DIFFICULTY SEEING THE ARPT AND CROSSES THE LOC ON ASSIGNED HDG.

Narrative: ON L BASE FOR RWY 27L AT ATL, RECEIVING VECTORS AS NORMAL. HAZY VFR EVENING AT SUNDOWN, KNOWING VISIBILITY WOULD BE MARGINAL WHEN VECTORED W FOR LOC INTERCEPT. ATL APCH CTLR HAD ASKED US IF WE SAW TFC THAT HE WANTED US TO FOLLOW. WE REPLIED 'NEGATIVE.' SOON THEREAFTER, ANOTHER ACFT RPTED 'TFC IN SIGHT, RWY IN SIGHT.' AND AT THAT TIME I THINK HE RECEIVED A CLRNC FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27L. WE CONTINUED NBOUND ON BASE LEG. WE THEN WERE GIVEN A TURN TO APPROX 340 DEGS. WE COMPLIED. I REALIZED WE WERE GOING TO PASS THROUGH THE LOC RAPIDLY, WITH NO CLRNC TO JOIN IT. CONGESTED FREQ PREVENTED US FROM ASKING THE CTLR. AS WE PASSED THROUGH THE LOC, STILL ON A 340 DEG HDG, THE CTLR CAME THROUGH IN A PANICKED VOICE DEMANDING AN 'IMMEDIATE TURN TO (APPROX) 240 DEGS TO REJOIN LOC,' WHAT WERE WE DOING? AND WHY DIDN'T WE CAPTURE AND TRACK,' ETC. WE REPLIED THAT WE WERE NEVER CLRED FOR THE APCH. HE (CTLR) SAID WE HAD ACCEPTED THE VISUAL APCH CLRNC, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG. (I BELIEVE HE MISTOOK US FOR THE ACFT Y THAT DID ACCEPT THE VISUAL CLRNC.) WE CAPTURED THE LOC ON A SW HDG, FLEW THE APCH AND LANDED. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) CONGESTED FREQ MADE COM DIFFICULT. 2) APCH CTLR ASSUMED WE ACCEPTED A VISUAL CLRNC, PROBABLY BECAUSE EVERYBODY (OR MOST EVERYBODY) HAD ACCEPTED THAT CLRNC. WE DID NOT HAVE THE TFC OR ARPT IN SIGHT, NEVER DID DURING THIS WHOLE SEQUENCE, AND TOLD THE CTLR.

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.