Narrative:

Somebody; anybody on earth; show me where anything 'wake remnant' is written. I get it; a heavy tows a line of wake turbulence behind it that trails for 5 miles. But; there's nothing written about 'wake remnant'; yet I'm to be held to a standard to separate from something which has no separation requirement? What!?! My aircraft Y was 4.63 miles to the east; and 3 miles to the northeast of a 'heavy' cargo aircraft; as well as 1100 feet above it on a vector to join a final approach course separated by 2800 feet; and because I crossed a point in space at the same altitude the heavy was 4.63 miles ago...that's a 'wake remnant' issue?does wake turbulence not spin downward and outward? Do the laws of physics not apply to anything except the aircraft which are solely relying the laws of physics to stay airborne? Does the wake turbulence have an agreement with the heavy aircraft to not start falling downward and outward until it has visual confirmation that the heavy is exactly 5 NM away? I'm not separating from an agency introduced 'theory.' put that 'theory' in the 7110.65; and then we have a separation standard. If my aircraft Y was below the altitude the heavy was at in that same point in space; this would be an entirely different [report]; but again; it would still have no scientific evidence to back it up. At what rate does wake turbulence spiral down and out? I made sure to step aircraft Y down 1000 feet at a time in a safe manner which caused no delay; and what I got called on was bunk.have the agency define wake remnant in all instances.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller expressed frustration with being cited on an operational error based on a wake turbulence separation violation. The Controller believed the 5 miles separation did not apply due to the aircraft passing 1000 feet above and across the heavy aircraft's trail; not following it directly as the regulation states. The Controller pointed out that there is no published standard for this situation in the 7110.65 and suggested that the FAA address this.

Narrative: Somebody; ANYBODY ON EARTH; show me where anything 'wake remnant' is written. I get it; a heavy tows a line of wake turbulence behind it that trails for 5 miles. But; there's nothing written about 'wake remnant'; yet I'm to be held to a standard to separate from something which has no separation requirement? What!?! My Aircraft Y was 4.63 miles to the east; and 3 miles to the northeast of a 'heavy' cargo aircraft; as well as 1100 feet above it on a vector to join a final approach course separated by 2800 feet; and because I crossed a point in space at the same altitude the heavy was 4.63 miles ago...that's a 'wake remnant' issue?Does wake turbulence not spin downward and outward? Do the laws of physics not apply to anything except the aircraft which are solely relying the laws of physics to stay airborne? Does the wake turbulence have an agreement with the Heavy aircraft to not start falling downward and outward until it has visual confirmation that the Heavy is exactly 5 NM away? I'm not separating from an agency introduced 'theory.' Put that 'theory' in the 7110.65; and then we have a separation standard. If my Aircraft Y was below the altitude the heavy was at in that same point in space; this would be an entirely different [report]; but again; it would still have no scientific evidence to back it up. At what rate does Wake Turbulence spiral down and out? I made sure to step Aircraft Y down 1000 feet at a time in a safe manner which caused no delay; and what I got called on was bunk.Have the agency define wake remnant in all instances.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.