Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Throughout the arrival ATC requested best forward speed; comply at ZZZZZ: 230kts; 10;000 ft. After ZZZZZ; we were vectored for the approach to XXL. We called the airport in sight and ATC cleared us for the approach. We were also requested to slow to 160kts for spacing with an aircraft in front of us for the same runway. At this point I had flaps 8; and requested flaps 20. [Another] flight was also being vectored for XXL; coming from the west. ATC then asked us to slow to final approach speed and if we had the aircraft ahead insight. We did not have it insight; so were quickly told to turn left to a heading of 270. I believe the [other] flight was then cleared for the approach ahead of us; behind the first aircraft we were following. They then gave us a right turn back to the East and told us to intercept the localizer for XXL; but we were 90 degrees to the course and wouldn't have been able to make it and we weren't configured. I think I remember the controller stating that 'this isn't going to work' and asked if we could accept runway XXR. We said yes; and ATC began vectoring us for XXR. At this point I was very task saturated and should've done a go around. I was very concerned that the aircraft was set up for XXR and verbalized this. He said it was. In hindsight; I should have just disconnected the autopilot. We were configured by the FAF and a stable approach was completed. A go around should have been executed before this situation got so far. We did not have time to find the original aircraft in front of us; and then the [other] flight was thrown into the situation. When ATC switched us to XXR; a localizer frequency should have been offered. The Captain called the tower after we landed to discuss what happened with the supervisor. He said they were happy he called; and the supervisor was watching the whole situation. He also agreed a report should be completed.


Second narrative: After being vectored on to final for runway XXL from the west at on approach control frequency; I called the airport in sight after we descended below the clouds; approximately 3;000 ft. AGL; ATC cleared us for the visual approach and instructed a speed reduction to 160 KIAS. There was another aircraft on final about 4 miles ahead of us. I offered to slow to approach speed and the controller immediately requested for us to do so while asking if we could also see the aircraft ahead of us. I indicated that I was unable to see an aircraft ahead. First Officer already had flaps 8 and called for flaps 20 to start slowing when I replied that I was unable to see the other aircraft. Suddenly ATC issued instructions for us to turn left to a heading of 270. At the same time; [another] flight was cleared to join the localizer ahead from the opposite direction; from the east; and midway between us and the previous aircraft. As we rolled out on the 270 heading; we were instructed to turn back to the right to a heading of 090 to intercept the localizer. As we rolled through 360 I could clearly see the [other] aircraft; rolling onto final about 2 miles ahead of us. By then it appeared as if the controller was going to want us to join the LOC on almost a 90 degree angle; not fully configured on a 3 mile final. I was about to ask for re-sequence when the controller asked if I could take runway XXR. I responded that we could; without taking the time to consult the flying pilot. As we crossed the approach path for XXL I was quickly pulling up the LOC frequency for XXR and trying to get the frequencies retuned. [Pilot Flying] asked if I was sure it was XXR and not XXC. I followed procedure and got verification from ATC prior to tuning it on the RTU (Radio Tuning Unit). This seemed to take longer than [Pilot Flying] had expected and I was not yet fully aware of his level of stress over the sudden unnecessary changes. We were then vectored through the XXR LOC and given right turns back towards the airport and cleared for a visual to XXR. The approach and landing was stabilized and without further incident. In retrospect; I think not giving [Pilot Flying] time to give his input about accepting a different runway; understandably added to his stress. While I may not have been uncomfortable with what I saw outside the window; I could have made my fellow pilot less comfortable by not asking him what he was thinking. Other contributory factors were compounded when the controller did not offer a LOC frequency whilst changing runways after getting us to less than optimal airspeed and giving us an impromptu tour of his airspace. Our company procedures require us to use an ILS as a backup whenever available; even in visual conditions. This meant that our crew had to simultaneously deal with clarification of communications; following ATC instructions; practice slow flight; and setting up navigation for a late runway change. To add to the equation; there were 80 souls in the main cabin who were certainly wondering why we were zig-zagging around the airport. I think most pilots don't like being loaded up that much in the simulator. Even less do we enjoy such practice in a real airplane at low altitude; and in the most critical phase of flight. Once at the gate; I asked the tower for a phone number to Approach and was given the number that connected me immediately to the supervisor who had been standing behind the controller during the entire ordeal. ATC stated first that he was glad I called. He then explained to me that he had told the controller to re-sequence us and not try to save the situation after his first mistake had put us in a position for an unstable approach. He apologized for the inconvenience and indicated that the [other] aircraft should not have been squeezed into the line. He should have sent the [other] aircraft to runway XXR to begin with. But by the time the situation had developed; it was better for us to break off of the approach than toattempt to turn the other aircraft around. [The supervisor] was professional and wanted to reassure me that such traffic management is not acceptable and that the controller at the helm during the situation was made well aware of that fact. He and I agreed that a report should be filed if it has the potential prevent at least some similar situations from occurring. I can't speak for the ATC practices and procedures; but from my perspective; there are a few variables at play here that should receive a little more focus in the near future. This applies several large class B airports facilities as well warrants adequate and candid discussion. I can't speak for the ATC practices and procedures; but from my perspective; there are a few variables at play here that should receive a little more focus in the near future. This applies several large class B airports facilities as well warrants adequate and candid discussion. RNAV arrivals have been created to help reduce controller and pilot work load as well as simplify clearance delivery. Issue them; let us all fly them as published; line us up; and watch us keep the line moving as you switch us to the next sector. Trust us to do our part as pilots. TCAS tells us how far behind the next aircraft we are. You want separation; ask us to keep 4 to 5 miles and we will do it. We will be far less confused and take up less time on frequency getting clarification of what you actually need us to do. Keeping the frequency more clear will also allow for us confused pilots to actually ask for the help we need when we don't understand something rather than have to wait for a lengthy exchange while a potentially adverse situation gets worse. It would also be nice if there were some regularly scheduled meetings between professional pilot groups and ATC groups. Before 9/11; it was as easy as asking on the radio if we could come visit the tower in between flights. But after all the bureaucrats got involved; common sense seemed to get tossed right out the window and now we have a generation of pilots who have never been to an ATC facility; seen a radar screen; or had the chance to ask questions directly to a controller and vice versa! I would love to see that decision get more attention.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported ATC sequencing error on approach.