Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
During approach to 9R ILS PRM into ATL we were established on final approach and cleared for the approach at 3000 feet. The localizer on both of our sides flagged red and disappeared. We reported this to ATC. They asked if we could maintain our course line inbound due to traffic. We said yes as we could fly the course from the FMS but not the approach. Our speed assigned was 210. Shortly after about 20 seconds we got the ILS back prior to glideslope intercept. The Controller was blocked on a communication and may have told us to slow to 180 but we were not sure. The monitor Controller then assigned us 'immediately slow to 150' so we deployed full boards and dropped gear to slow. For some reason the Controller did not hear our readback so he gave us another instruction to slow to 150. Once again he did not hear us and told us to respond with an ident. We did and responded on both main and monitor frequency. He assigned us a turn out 20 degrees to right which we complied with. We never heard a traffic alert message; only a vector off of the course and maintain the same altitude. At this point we did not know if we were being removed from the approach or not. We then got an instruction to turn again and vectors for the ILS to 10. I do not know if we had a traffic conflict. I do not know if we missed the speed earlier or not. There was a lot of stepping on errors with regard to voice communication. We returned to land on ILS 10; during which the monitor Controller checked us to see if we had communication on the primary and monitor frequency. Mechanical failure of some kind; perhaps a plane passing through localizer signal. This caused distraction and workload. Poor weather prevailed; low minimums almost cat 2. Several double communications from the primary and monitor Controller became hard to understand; and perhaps our readbacks being blocked by the urgency of the Controllers all contributed to an abandoned approach and possibly a conflict. I don't know if I have any suggestions. We were stable and prepared. The event was unusual with the loss of course. During triple PRM approaches the Center does not really have an escape route that is known. It was an exceptional event and have not encountered anything like it before doing PRM approaches in Atlanta many times. I do not have any reasonable explanation why our communications were not being heard except really poor timing with other instructions. The only thing that would have been better would have been for ATC to have taken immediate action to break us out after loss of course.
During approach to 9R ILS PRM in ATL and before the FAF; we were established on final and cleared for the PRM approach at 3000 feet. The localizer on each PFD flagged out and we lost the flight director briefly in approach mode. We reported this to ATC. They asked if we could maintain our course line inbound due to traffic; and we reported that we could fly the course line but not the approach on the FMS. Our assigned speed was 210. 20 seconds later; our localizer came back and we were able to navigate normally and reported this to ATC. At this point there was a lot of chatter on frequency. ATC cleared us back onto the approach; and they may have asked us to slow to 180 but either we didn't hear it or it was blocked by traffic. A few seconds later; the monitor controller came on and instructed us to slow immediately to 150 knots; and we read back the instructions on com1 while deploying flight spoilers and the landing gear to slow expeditiously. Both controllers began issuing instructions at this point; and eventually the monitor controller instructed us to turn 20 degrees left immediately and maintain 3000 feet (our current altitude). It quickly became clear that he was breaking us off the approach although a clear breakout phraseology was never used. We still had a hard time reading back the instructions to him due to the frequency being so jammed; and he had us acknowledge with an ident (which we did) and handed us off to another approach controller. The new approach controller gave us vectors for the ILS PRM 10; we set up the approach; briefed it; were vectored onto it; and executed it without issue. On the approach to 10; the monitoring controller queries whether we could hear him; and when we responded on com1; he had us respond again on com2 (monitor frequency). Equipment malfunction caused enough of a momentary delay in ATC communications that not only were they delayed in slowing us; but they were delayed in being able to communicate to the other aircraft on approach. The speed clearance from ATC to 180 knots was either never given or was blocked. Either way; it was not verified to have been read back. The 150 knot instruction was read back on both main and monitor frequency; but ATC behaved as if we were not responding. The 'breakout' issued was further complicated by the fact that it was issued simultaneously on both frequencies by different controllers without using standard breakout phraseology ('traffic alert...'); causing confusion both for us as we complied and for them as they sought our read back. I've never seen this equipment issue or such an issue with communicating with ATC. Without having gone back to the tapes; I'm unsure of the best suggestions for this event. The only thing I can think of is that if an ATC communications backlog like this can result from a momentary equipment issue; then a vector off the approach should have been issued.
CRJ-200 flight crew reported communication difficulties on the 9R ILS PRM approach into ATL resulted in a go-around.