Narrative:

Busy traffic; visual approaches to both outboard and inboard runways; ZZZ 1; west traffic flow. Downe radar (dnyr) works xxl/right complex. A380 on ILS then visual to runway xxl; A320 on ILS xxl to follow A380; crj-700 visual to follow A320; but land xxr. The LOA between ZZZ and ZZZ 1 states when a A380 or B747 lands xxl; provide at least 10 miles in trail to xxr; this is to allow the A380 to get clear of both runways. A320 was 7 miles behind A380; crj-700 was 1.5 miles behind A320; giving only 8.5 miles to the tower to get the A380 off. The tower calls and said he doesn't think it's going to work and to slow the crj-700. Meanwhile; it looks like A320 is going to lose required wake turbulence separation with A380 so the dnyr controller cancels the approach clearance of A320 and has him track inbound. I tell dwny; tower doesn't think this going to work with crj-700; and suggested breaking A320 out since he was already too close to the A380 and moving crj-700 back over to xxl. The controller waits until the A380 touches down; then asks A320 if he has the field in sight; A320 does; dnyr clears him for a visual approach and changes him to tower frequency. Crj-700 does end up going around because the A380 blocked xxr. After the controller was relieved; I asked him why he still let the A320 land behind the A380 even though he was closer than 7 miles; and he responded; the A380 wasn't on his scope any more so he no longer had to provide for wake turbulence. Is there a ruling somewhere on the legality of this? It doesn't seem safe to me. He said he sees other controllers doing this (I have never witnessed this before) basically; if the in trail aircraft is closer than required wake turbulence; he thinks he can cancel his approach clearance; use normal IFR separation (1;000 ft) and once the A380 touches down it's like he never existed and the trailing aircraft is now cleared number one for the approach. I thought because the tower had already warned us the crj-700 wasn't going to be able to land xxr; it would have been safer to break A320 out and let the crj-700 land 8 miles behind the A380 on the same runway. No gray area there. I would just like clarification on the wake turbulence behind a A380; if required separation is 7 miles; there can be no aircraft closer than 7 miles to that runway when the A380 touches down. Not this ticky-tacky cancel approach clearance/re-cleared visual when the aircraft touches down stuff.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Supervisor described a questionable interpretation of the 'Wake Turbulence Separation' required when following an A380 on final.

Narrative: Busy traffic; visual approaches to both outboard and inboard runways; ZZZ 1; west traffic flow. DOWNE RADAR (DNYR) works XXL/R complex. A380 on ILS then visual to Runway XXL; A320 on ILS XXL to follow A380; CRJ-700 visual to follow A320; but land XXR. The LOA between ZZZ and ZZZ 1 states when a A380 or B747 lands XXL; provide at least 10 miles in trail to XXR; this is to allow the A380 to get clear of both runways. A320 was 7 miles behind A380; CRJ-700 was 1.5 miles behind A320; giving only 8.5 miles to the Tower to get the A380 off. The Tower calls and said he doesn't think it's going to work and to slow the CRJ-700. Meanwhile; it looks like A320 is going to lose required wake turbulence separation with A380 so the DNYR Controller cancels the approach clearance of A320 and has him track inbound. I tell DWNY; Tower doesn't think this going to work with CRJ-700; and suggested breaking A320 out since he was already too close to the A380 and moving CRJ-700 back over to XXL. The Controller waits until the A380 touches down; then asks A320 if he has the field in sight; A320 does; DNYR clears him for a visual approach and changes him to Tower frequency. CRJ-700 does end up going around because the A380 blocked XXR. After the Controller was relieved; I asked him why he still let the A320 land behind the A380 even though he was closer than 7 miles; and he responded; the A380 wasn't on his scope any more so he no longer had to provide for wake turbulence. Is there a ruling somewhere on the legality of this? It doesn't seem safe to me. He said he sees other controllers doing this (I have never witnessed this before) basically; if the in trail aircraft is closer than required wake turbulence; he thinks he can cancel his approach clearance; use normal IFR separation (1;000 FT) and once the A380 touches down it's like he never existed and the trailing aircraft is now cleared number one for the approach. I thought because the Tower had already warned us the CRJ-700 wasn't going to be able to land XXR; it would have been safer to break A320 out and let the CRJ-700 land 8 miles behind the A380 on the same runway. No gray area there. I would just like clarification on the wake turbulence behind a A380; if required separation is 7 miles; there can be no aircraft closer than 7 miles to that runway when the A380 touches down. Not this ticky-tacky cancel approach clearance/re-cleared visual when the aircraft touches down stuff.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.