Narrative:

We were inbound to clt in an A321 with a check captain on board to line check the captain (pilot flying). Clt was in a south operation and we were inbound on the Sudsy3 STAR. We expected; set up for and briefed the approach to runway 23; the normal arrival runway from this direction. The new clt runway 18R; which opened recently; has visual only special procedures but we were not expecting to be involved with it on this leg. We had been advised that it was primarily used for west arrivals. Weather was calm; 10 and clear. We checked in with clt approach control and were told to expect runway 23. Apparently traffic was backing up on runway 23 and; prior to gizmo; we were given a westerly vector and told to expect runway 18C. We were at 6000 ft MSL; 250 KIAS and traffic was moderately heavy. We set up for and briefed the approach to runway 18C. We were given a frequency change to the western sector final approach controller. The impression we got from our radio conversations with both controllers was that they were relatively new. That may not be the true but that is how it seemed. Regardless; the clt controllers are still struggling with new procedures that have come about from the opening of runway 18R/36L. It does not appear that clt has figured out solid procedures for handling traffic incorporating the new runway. Additionally; it was the captain's first pass through clt since that runway opened. Because of our non-standard handling; we were hot and high. We finally slowed to 210 KIAS and after a couple of vectors; called the field when asked about 15 miles out. We were then cleared the visual approach to runway 18R which; of course; immediately created a lot of confusion for us. Clt now likes to keep runway 18C primarily for departures and use runway 18R for arrivals. We questioned the clearance and related what we had been told to expect. The first controller may have been thinking runway 18R; but he said runway 18C. We were told runway 18C was unavailable; even though there was no one on approach to it; and were then recleared the visual to runway 18R. We were also told to hold 170 KIAS until a 5 mile final. We configured with more flaps; lowered the gear and began s-turns in the attempt. We then spotted uncalled traffic well below us and about 2.5 miles in front of us on the visual to runway 18R; going very slowly. It was apparent that this was never going to work and; at about 3800 ft MSL; we told the controller that we either needed runway 18C or we needed to break off the approach. He gave us a westerly vector and assigned 4000 ft. Two short vectors later we were cleared the visual runway 18R. He had dropped us off high and close in (about 2.5 miles) behind runway 18R visual traffic again! This time we made it work but the approach was on the ragged edge of stabilized. After landing; the check captain immediately got on the phone to a clt ATC supervisor. It occurred because: 1. Clt has a new runway with new approach procedures that are not fully refined or understood yet. 2. The crew was mishandled on a runway saturation situation. 3. The controllers appeared inexperienced and needed better supervision. 4. The final controller was not allowing adequate spacing between flights on runway 18R. 5. Runway 18C was not used as a safety valve for traffic overload on runway 18R. 6. There seemed to be poor communication between controllers. 7. The crew was misled on which runway and approach to expect.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 Captain laments ATC handling during approach to the new Runway 18R at CLT that results in a go around due to high start and insufficient spacing on final. After being vectored back for another visual to 18R the same high start and inadequate spacing results; which led to a possible unstabilized approach.

Narrative: We were inbound to CLT in an A321 with a check Captain on board to line check the Captain (pilot flying). CLT was in a south operation and we were inbound on the Sudsy3 STAR. We expected; set up for and briefed the approach to Runway 23; the normal arrival runway from this direction. The new CLT Runway 18R; which opened recently; has visual only special procedures but we were not expecting to be involved with it on this leg. We had been advised that it was primarily used for west arrivals. Weather was calm; 10 and CLR. We checked in with CLT Approach Control and were told to expect Runway 23. Apparently traffic was backing up on Runway 23 and; prior to GIZMO; we were given a westerly vector and told to expect Runway 18C. We were at 6000 FT MSL; 250 KIAS and traffic was moderately heavy. We set up for and briefed the approach to Runway 18C. We were given a frequency change to the western sector final approach controller. The impression we got from our radio conversations with both controllers was that they were relatively new. That may not be the true but that is how it seemed. Regardless; the CLT Controllers are still struggling with new procedures that have come about from the opening of Runway 18R/36L. It does not appear that CLT has figured out solid procedures for handling traffic incorporating the new runway. Additionally; it was the Captain's first pass through CLT since that runway opened. Because of our non-standard handling; we were hot and high. We finally slowed to 210 KIAS and after a couple of vectors; called the field when asked about 15 miles out. We were then cleared the visual approach to Runway 18R which; of course; immediately created a lot of confusion for us. CLT now likes to keep Runway 18C primarily for departures and use Runway 18R for arrivals. We questioned the clearance and related what we had been told to expect. The first Controller may have been thinking Runway 18R; but he said Runway 18C. We were told Runway 18C was unavailable; even though there was no one on approach to it; and were then recleared the visual to Runway 18R. We were also told to hold 170 KIAS until a 5 mile final. We configured with more flaps; lowered the gear and began S-turns in the attempt. We then spotted uncalled traffic well below us and about 2.5 miles in front of us on the visual to Runway 18R; going very slowly. It was apparent that this was never going to work and; at about 3800 FT MSL; we told the Controller that we either needed Runway 18C or we needed to break off the approach. He gave us a westerly vector and assigned 4000 FT. Two short vectors later we were cleared the visual Runway 18R. He had dropped us off high and close in (about 2.5 miles) behind Runway 18R visual traffic AGAIN! This time we made it work but the approach was on the ragged edge of stabilized. After landing; the check Captain immediately got on the phone to a CLT ATC supervisor. It occurred because: 1. CLT has a new runway with new approach procedures that are not fully refined or understood yet. 2. The crew was mishandled on a runway saturation situation. 3. The controllers appeared inexperienced and needed better supervision. 4. The final Controller was not allowing adequate spacing between flights on Runway 18R. 5. Runway 18C was not used as a safety valve for traffic overload on Runway 18R. 6. There seemed to be poor communication between controllers. 7. The crew was misled on which runway and approach to expect.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.