Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 141; Flight Crew Total 9727; Flight Crew Type 497
Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
The First Officer was pilot flying.  The weather in ATL was deteriorating but well within minimums for the First Officer (FO) to continue flying.  We were being vectored to ILS PRM Runway 10 in IMC conditions; moderate turbulence; and moderate rain.  The FO had the autopilot engaged and was manually 'helping' the auto throttles keep the proper airspeed in very trying conditions.  Approaching glideslope intercept; the FO configured the aircraft and began slowing normally.  Immediately after glideslope intercept; we were given an ATC directed breakout.  After executing the breakout and on radar crosswind; I asked the controller why were we broken out.  He replied that we weren't slowing down.  I chose not to argue and returned to my duties as Pilot Monitoring.  Now being vectored back into the radar pattern for another ILS PRM Runway 10.  We accomplished our normal checklists and preparation for the next approach.  Upon being cleared for the approach on dogleg to final; I stated; 'Approaching inbound course' as per our procedures.  The FO reached up and hit the ILS arm button on the Mode Control Panel and I noticed it did not arm.  I attempted several pushes of the ILS arm button to no avail and as the raw data showed us approaching the localizer; I directed the FO to manually intercept the localizer.  As the FO disconnected the autopilot and was turning the aircraft onto the localizer; the aircraft flew past the beam.  I noted the FO had a good correction and the lateral deviation was minor so I didn't think it was a problem at this point.  Immediately we were given another breakout from ATC.  We performed the breakout maneuver once again.  On the next ILS PRM Runway 10; I took control of the aircraft so as to give my FO a break from the very difficult flying conditions.  This approach was normal and allowed to continue and landing was uneventful.  Contributing factors to this chain of events are identified as the weather; the automation difficulties in arming the approach; and the stress of two PRM breakout procedures in IMC.  To a lesser extent are my FO's experience level as a new-hire and my experience on the airplane only since the same date.
The stress of the conditions; multiple approach and long day were adding up.  We agreed this would be our last attempt before diverting.  We got a wider and longer vector for the 3rd approach and were able to complete the rest of the flight into ATL. Looking back; the conditions were a lot worse than we had anticipated.  We could have asked for wider/longer vectors; executed missed approach at the first sign of automation problem; and or diverted to our alternate to re assess the weather.
Pilots report of two go-arounds into ATL caused by weather; equipment not arming and vectors to final. Aircraft landed on third attempt.