Narrative:

Inbound to atl on the ILS prm to runway 10; we were 5 miles in trail of a B757; IMC; descending on the glideslope and cleared to land. Even though it is not required; I have gotten in the habit of using continuous ignition when I believe there is a potential for wake turbulence. I selected cont ign as soon as we were informed we were 5 miles behind the B757. Crossing the final approach fix; we experienced 2 somewhat sharp rolls to the left. The autopilot had no issues controlling the roll and I don't believe they exceeded 10 degrees of bank. They did not seem serious enough to consider breaking off the approach. I quickly slowed the aircraft to vref speed to maintain our distance behind the B757. Normally I would offset the glideslope when following a B757 but given we were still IMC I felt it best to keep the autopilot on the glideslope. A minute or so later we experienced a sharp; very aggressive left roll of approximately 30 degrees bank. I immediately took control of the aircraft from the autopilot; leveled the wings and leveled our descent to fly out of the wake turbulence. Glancing up I realized the runway had come into sight and continued the approach; this time intentionally remaining at least 5 degrees high on the glideslope; but stabilized; the remaining distance to the runway. We landed without further incident.would it be a good idea to consider adding a procedure to select continuous ignition whenever wake turbulence is a possible threat? Especially with the newly recategorized criteria - I am experiencing far more instances of wake (granted most are minor) encounters since atl adapted the recat standards.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to ATL five miles in trail of a B757 that resulted in a 'sharp' left roll.

Narrative: Inbound to ATL on the ILS PRM to RWY 10; we were 5 miles in trail of a B757; IMC; descending on the glideslope and cleared to land. Even though it is not required; I have gotten in the habit of using Continuous Ignition when I believe there is a potential for wake turbulence. I selected Cont Ign as soon as we were informed we were 5 miles behind the B757. Crossing the final approach fix; we experienced 2 somewhat sharp rolls to the left. The autopilot had no issues controlling the roll and I don't believe they exceeded 10 degrees of bank. They did not seem serious enough to consider breaking off the approach. I quickly slowed the aircraft to Vref speed to maintain our distance behind the B757. Normally I would offset the glideslope when following a B757 but given we were still IMC I felt it best to keep the autopilot on the glideslope. A minute or so later we experienced a sharp; very aggressive left roll of approximately 30 degrees bank. I immediately took control of the aircraft from the autopilot; leveled the wings and leveled our descent to fly out of the wake turbulence. Glancing up I realized the runway had come into sight and continued the approach; this time intentionally remaining at least 5 degrees high on the glideslope; but stabilized; the remaining distance to the runway. We landed without further incident.Would it be a good idea to consider adding a procedure to select Continuous Ignition whenever wake turbulence is a possible threat? Especially with the newly recategorized criteria - I am experiencing far more instances of wake (granted most are minor) encounters since ATL adapted the Recat standards.

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.