L1011-500 ACFT ON VISUAL APCH TO ATL WAS INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW TFC WHICH THEY COULDN'T FIND. AFTER FLC SAW ANOTHER ACFT VERY CLOSE THE APCH CTLR INTERVENED AND TOLD THEM THEY WERE SUPPOSE TO BE LNDG ON THE N COMPLEX RWY.

Narrative

THE FLT WAS A L10-500 RETURNING TO ATL FROM A EUROPEAN DEP CITY. THE CREW HAD BEEN ONBOARD THE ACFT FOR SLIGHTLY UNDER 12 HRS WITH NO DUTY BREAK OR CREW REST. THE FLT APCHED ATL FROM THE NE ON THE MACEY ARR. THE FO WAS FLYING. WE ANTICIPATED AND THE FO BRIEFED AN APCH FOR RWY 26R; WHICH IS THE NORMAL RWY FOR AIRPLANES ON THAT STAR. AFTER WE LEFT THE LAST FIX ON THE ARR AND WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE APCH; THE CTLR CHANGED OUR RWY TO RWY 27L ON THE S RWY COMPLEX. THE FO AND CAPT REMARKED THAT THIS WAS RATHER UNUSUAL AND PROCEEDED TO CHANGE THEIR RADIOS ACCORDINGLY. THE SO WAS DIVERTED TAKING CARE OF A FLT ATTENDANT CABIN/PAX PROB AND DID NOT HEAR THE RWY CHANGE. THE APCH PROGRESSED; AND THE AIRPLANE WAS PROCEEDED MORE OR LESS SOUTHERLY ON RADAR VECTORS; BEING GIVEN DSCNTS AND HEADINGS TO PROVIDE TFC SEPARATION AND SPACING. AS WE NEARED THE ARPT (15 NM; MORE OR LESS); THE CTLR TRIED TO POINT OUT AN ATR AIRPLANE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OUR TFC. WE DID NOT REALLY HAVE THE AIRPLANE IN VISUAL CONTACT ADEQUATELY ENOUGH TO FOLLOW HIM FOR AN APCH; WHICH I REALLY DON'T LIKE TO DO ANYWAY -- BUT WE DID HAVE THE ARPT; WHICH WE SO STATED. SUBSEQUENTLY; THE CTLR GAVE US A MULTITUDE OF INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO SPD; ALT; HEADING; AND CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH. WE HAD LOST THE ATR ACFT IN THE AFTERNOON HAZE ASSOCIATED WITH A SPRING DAY AND A LOWERING SUN; AND WERE TRYING TO FOCUS ON THE SILHOUETTE OF A DC9 WHICH HAD NOT BEEN 'CALLED' TO US AS TFC; BUT WAS SURELY HEADING FOR RWY 27. BY THIS TIME THE SO WAS IN THE 'LOOP' AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE ATR WAS; NOW THE DC9 FITTED IN THE EQUATION; AND READ CHKLISTS; AND FLY THE AIRPLANE. AS THE FO ROLLED OUT OF A DSNDING R TURN TO INTERCEPT THE LOC; ALL 3 OF US NOTICED A B737; BIGGER THAN LIFE; SLIGHTLY BELOW US; WHICH HAD SEEMINGLY COME OUT OF NOWHERE. ABOUT THIS TIME WE QUESTIONED THE CTLR ABOUT THE TFC AND THE CTLR QUESTIONED WHICH RWY WE WERE HEADED FOR. HE THEN SAID THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE N RWY COMPLEX; AND CLRED US ACCORDINGLY. NO TCASII ADVISORY OR WARNING EVER TRANSPIRED. WHETHER THE FIRST CTLR NEGLECTED TO TELL THE NEXT CTLR ABOUT THE RWY ASSIGNMENT -- WHICH I STRONGLY SUSPECT IS THE CASE -- OR WE DID NOT HEAR A CHANGE BACK TO THE N RWY COMPLEX; IS MERE CONJECTURE. THE REAL CULPRIT HERE IS ATC TRYING TO PACK TOO MANY VISUAL APCHS INTO TOO SHORT A TIME FRAME; AND TOO MANY INSTRUCTIONS BEING GIVEN TO FATIGUED PLTS WHO HAVE BEEN NECESSARILY STRAPPED TO AN AIRPLANE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. I WILL END ON A NOTE THAT VISUAL APCHS FOLLOWING AN AIRPLANE ARE NOT AS SUCCESSFUL AS ATC WOULD HAVE ONE BELIEVE. THE CTLR USES THEM AS AN AID TO DECREASE SEPARATION; WHILE THE HAPLESS PLT -- TRYING TO COOPERATE -- UNDERTAKES TO PROVIDE SEPARATION WITH NO CLUE AS TO WHAT THE SEPARATION REALLY IS; OR THE OTHER ACFT'S SPD OR THEIR RATE OF CLOSURE; ALL OF WHICH IS READILY AVAILABLE TO THE CTLR ON HIS/HER RADAR SCREEN DISPLAY.