Narrative:

On downwind for a visual approach into slc; it became clear we were following a 757 for the same runway. I briefed the first officer about the possibility of wake turbulence and that I planned [to] fly the approach 1 dot high to stay above the path of the 757 in accordance with the fom procedures for wake turbulence. We noticed on final using TCAS and confirming visually that the 757 was only 3 miles ahead of us. Other than a small jolt of turbulence; our approach was uneventful. I aimed to touch down just beyond the touchdown point of the 757. In the landing flare; we experienced momentary wake turbulence requiring quick full scale aileron deflection in each direction to maintain control. Given our current position and that our engines were almost spooled down; the safest course of action was to continue the landing which was smooth and inside the touchdown zone. The turbulence lasted maybe a second before everything was normal again. We taxied to the gate uneventfully. Upon reaching the gate; I called dispatch to make them aware of the situation. I also notified ATC and was given the tower supervisor's phone number. We discussed the situation and both agreed that it was most likely caused by the new separation requirements which consider the 757 to be a large aircraft instead of a heavy. With the E175 also categorize as a large aircraft; the required IFR spacing was only 3 miles. He thanked me for letting him know and said he'd pass along the information. Even with planning for the possibility of wake turbulence and doing everything we could to avoid it; it was still a safety threat. I believe this is because of the change in aircraft separation. I am confidence that had we been given 5 miles in trail separation from this aircraft as previously required; this situation would not have occurred. The FAA may want to reconsider spacing requirements of boeing 757 aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-175 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence in 3-mile trail of a B757 just before touchdown that required aggressive aileron input. Reporter stated he felt more separation behind B757 aircraft would be a good idea.

Narrative: On downwind for a visual approach into SLC; it became clear we were following a 757 for the same runway. I briefed the FO about the possibility of wake turbulence and that I planned [to] fly the approach 1 dot high to stay above the path of the 757 in accordance with the FOM procedures for wake turbulence. We noticed on final using TCAS and confirming visually that the 757 was only 3 miles ahead of us. Other than a small jolt of turbulence; our approach was uneventful. I aimed to touch down just beyond the touchdown point of the 757. In the landing flare; we experienced momentary wake turbulence requiring quick full scale aileron deflection in each direction to maintain control. Given our current position and that our engines were almost spooled down; the safest course of action was to continue the landing which was smooth and inside the touchdown zone. The turbulence lasted maybe a second before everything was normal again. We taxied to the gate uneventfully. Upon reaching the gate; I called dispatch to make them aware of the situation. I also notified ATC and was given the tower supervisor's phone number. We discussed the situation and both agreed that it was most likely caused by the new separation requirements which consider the 757 to be a large aircraft instead of a heavy. With the E175 also categorize as a large aircraft; the required IFR spacing was only 3 miles. He thanked me for letting him know and said he'd pass along the information. Even with planning for the possibility of wake turbulence and doing everything we could to avoid it; it was still a safety threat. I believe this is because of the change in aircraft separation. I am confidence that had we been given 5 miles in trail separation from this aircraft as previously required; this situation would not have occurred. The FAA may want to reconsider spacing requirements of Boeing 757 aircraft.

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.