Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Fatigue; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Procedure; Human Factors
We briefed the entire flight on the ground prior to departure due to the length of the flight and the inclement weather in ATL. The FO (First Officer) was the PF (Pilot Flying.) He briefed that 'this early we would be getting runway 9R' I pointed out that the arrival we were assigned specifically says runway 10. He insisted that we would get 9R this early. Because I had already had to ask him to please wait for me to call for checklists; insist that it was my decision whether we would taxi single engine or not; etc; etc; I decided I would pick my battles; so to say; and believe her since I am relatively new to being based in ATL. Later as I contacted ATL approach they assigned us runway 10 as I expected. Within a second before anything could be said the FO; as the flying pilot; reached over and changed the NAV one to the ILS for 10. I was sort of taken aback; but didn't really say anything; once again just thinking this was our last leg together and it would be over soon enough. So the FO gives an extremely short brief of runway 10 before I had a chance to pull up the 11-9. I confirmed the ILS was correct for 10. We were giving a heading; but not to intercept. The FO said to 'clean up the box' and I said 'let's wait until we are told it is vectors in case we get direct to a fix'. We get cleared for the ILS 10 and it quickly becomes clear the localizer isn't matched to what we were seeing on the PFD. I cycled my nav source back to white and then back to green needles which doesn't fix the problem. We both realize what is happening; that we didn't change the runway in the FMS; at about the same time. I attempt to fix it in the FMS and almost simultaneously ATC gives a heading to turn off the approach to get re-sequenced. This happened simultaneously while the FO turned the Autopilot off without canceling the cavalry charge; which caused further distraction while trying to reply to ATC. The FO hand flew the turn to the new heading while I set up the FMS for the ILS to 10. We were re-sequenced and landed after seeing the runway and continuing to land around 350' above the field.Several main factors; I initially allowed the FO to plan and brief runway 9R instead of 10 because of the perception she had been in ATL longer than I and knows what to expect; combined with her insistence that it's what we will be assigned combined with my lack of desire to have defend another decision to the FO. Basically I was very tired [when we departed] and didn't think it was worth it to disagree with this FO over something I wasn't 100% sure on.  Secondly; I allowed the FO to give an unnecessarily rushed brief and respond in a manner that didn't adhere to the SOP when we were given the non-briefed runway.Thirdly; I think if it hadn't been so early or the weather so bad I would have caught that the FMS was never changed; but these factors along with the narrative provided above combined to miss this step. I will definitely be adding it into my personal scan and final checks once we are cleared for the approach.I feel I need to stand more firm even if it makes the FO uncomfortable when I am seeing rushing; complacency or non-conformity to the SOPs. I debriefed the FO on the risks of rushing; and that their actions; while I suspect were meant to be helpful; were in fact not helpful. I always brief that we are not in a hurry and will always take our time and do things the right way; now I just need to not get steamrolled into going faster than I feel comfortable with.
The crew had decided to brief the arrival on the ground prior to departure. FO (First Officer) flying leg briefed ILS 09R was likely due to the early time of day and lack of traffic. Upon contacting ATL Center; the crew was given ILS RWY 10. At this point the crew verified the correct frequency was in both NAVs however the pilot monitoring failed to make the runway correction in the FMS. Pilot flying failed to catch the mistake. ILS RWY 10 was briefed; however the aircraft intercepted the ILS RWY 09R in white needles. Pilot flying realized the course deviation prior to the FAF and disconnected the autopilot to return to the correct course while instructing the pilot monitoring to make the necessary change. Pilot flying swapped to green needles to intercept the correct course. At that time ATC gave vectors back around to re-intercept the correct ILS. The contributing factors also consisted of a high mins in low IFR at night; meaning workload was increased as we briefed for the likely missed approach. As well as fatigue due to the [early morning] local report time. This mistake can be avoided in the future by verifying while presenting the brief that the correct RWY has been set in the FMS as well as changing to the correct ILS frequency. This verification should take place by both pilots.
CRJ-200 flight crew reported communication breakdown between flight crew resulted in procedural errors on final approach.