Narrative:

On arrival to atl we were approaching odf on the flcon 3 when we were given a vector to the west and to expect routing via direct pechy and the pechy 3 arrival. We set up for this and were cleared to fly the pechy except vectors to downwind for runway 26R. Leaving 10000 ft we completed the approach checklist including setting the navigation radios for runway 26R. At 6000 ft we were told to change runway to runway 27L followed quickly by a descent to 4000 ft and then a turn to the south. The first officer was flying and he updated the FMS for runway 27L; but during the turn and descent we neglected to change the navigation radios to runway 27L. We reported the airport in sight but it was still fairly hazy. We were cleared for the visual to runway 27L and the first officer armed the ILS which captured to localizer almost immediately. The controller asked us if we were sure we were on runway 27L and initially we assured him we were. All the raw data looked good until I noticed we were heading too far north. I took the aircraft; disconnected the autoplt and turned back to the correct runway as the controller again said we looked to be on the wrong ILS. We had traffic 1000 ft above us; but there was no conflict. I turned the aircraft back to the first officer and we flew an uneventful visual approach and landing to runway 27L. The error was caused by multiple approach and runway changes; including after the approach checks were complete. Also too much attention was put in the FMS and not enough on the basics such as navigation radios.supplemental information from acn 791584: I noted to the captain we appeared to be correcting to the localizer course but were drifting north of the extended runway 27L centerline. The captain took the aircraft as the controller noted we appeared to be intercepting the runway 26R localizer and issued a traffic alert for another aircraft 1000 ft above and level. By then we had corrected toward runway 27L. I then performed the landing. Cockpit task loading contributed to this incident. The several changes in arrival routing; vectors; and altitude and speed changes led to task misprioritization. I should have immediately put the correct ILS navigation frequency in first. The hazy conditions coupled with our distance from the field; caused the perception that our position; heading; and localizer intercept were; at least initially; consistent with the runway 27L approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD88 FLT CREW HAS AN ARR CHANGE FOLLOWED BY A CLOSE-IN RWY CHANGE ON APCH TO ATL. THEY CHANGE THE INFORMATION IN THE FMS; BUT NEGLECT TO UPDATE THE NAV RADIOS AND CAPTURE THE WRONG ILS.

Narrative: ON ARR TO ATL WE WERE APCHING ODF ON THE FLCON 3 WHEN WE WERE GIVEN A VECTOR TO THE W AND TO EXPECT ROUTING VIA DIRECT PECHY AND THE PECHY 3 ARR. WE SET UP FOR THIS AND WERE CLRED TO FLY THE PECHY EXCEPT VECTORS TO DOWNWIND FOR RWY 26R. LEAVING 10000 FT WE COMPLETED THE APCH CHKLIST INCLUDING SETTING THE NAV RADIOS FOR RWY 26R. AT 6000 FT WE WERE TOLD TO CHANGE RWY TO RWY 27L FOLLOWED QUICKLY BY A DSCNT TO 4000 FT AND THEN A TURN TO THE S. THE FO WAS FLYING AND HE UPDATED THE FMS FOR RWY 27L; BUT DURING THE TURN AND DSCNT WE NEGLECTED TO CHANGE THE NAV RADIOS TO RWY 27L. WE RPTED THE ARPT IN SIGHT BUT IT WAS STILL FAIRLY HAZY. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 27L AND THE FO ARMED THE ILS WHICH CAPTURED TO LOCALIZER ALMOST IMMEDIATELY. THE CTLR ASKED US IF WE WERE SURE WE WERE ON RWY 27L AND INITIALLY WE ASSURED HIM WE WERE. ALL THE RAW DATA LOOKED GOOD UNTIL I NOTICED WE WERE HEADING TOO FAR N. I TOOK THE ACFT; DISCONNECTED THE AUTOPLT AND TURNED BACK TO THE CORRECT RWY AS THE CTLR AGAIN SAID WE LOOKED TO BE ON THE WRONG ILS. WE HAD TFC 1000 FT ABOVE US; BUT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT. I TURNED THE ACFT BACK TO THE FO AND WE FLEW AN UNEVENTFUL VISUAL APCH AND LNDG TO RWY 27L. THE ERROR WAS CAUSED BY MULTIPLE APCH AND RWY CHANGES; INCLUDING AFTER THE APCH CHECKS WERE COMPLETE. ALSO TOO MUCH ATTENTION WAS PUT IN THE FMS AND NOT ENOUGH ON THE BASICS SUCH AS NAV RADIOS.SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 791584: I NOTED TO THE CAPT WE APPEARED TO BE CORRECTING TO THE LOC COURSE BUT WERE DRIFTING N OF THE EXTENDED RWY 27L CTRLINE. THE CAPT TOOK THE ACFT AS THE CTLR NOTED WE APPEARED TO BE INTERCEPTING THE RWY 26R LOC AND ISSUED A TFC ALERT FOR ANOTHER ACFT 1000 FT ABOVE AND LEVEL. BY THEN WE HAD CORRECTED TOWARD RWY 27L. I THEN PERFORMED THE LNDG. COCKPIT TASK LOADING CONTRIBUTED TO THIS INCIDENT. THE SEVERAL CHANGES IN ARR ROUTING; VECTORS; AND ALTITUDE AND SPEED CHANGES LED TO TASK MISPRIORITIZATION. I SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY PUT THE CORRECT ILS NAV FREQUENCY IN FIRST. THE HAZY CONDITIONS COUPLED WITH OUR DISTANCE FROM THE FIELD; CAUSED THE PERCEPTION THAT OUR POSITION; HEADING; AND LOC INTERCEPT WERE; AT LEAST INITIALLY; CONSISTENT WITH THE RWY 27L APCH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.