Narrative:

I was trying to build 7 miles between aircraft X and aircraft Y on final when aircraft X dropped off my scope on his landing roll. I had 6.3 miles when aircraft X landed. After aircraft X dropped off the scope; I cleared aircraft Y for his ILS. With recat (wake turbulence re-categorization); a category F aircraft requires 5 miles 'directly behind' a category B; but 'on approach' needs 7 miles. Aircraft Y was never cleared; however; I did only have about 6.3 miles. Technically; I had the separation I needed when I cleared aircraft Y; but I wanted to write this up to bring to light the issues we've had with recat that don't seem to be heard outside the region.recat has decreased our efficiency and increased our go-arounds. I did not deem this event unsafe in any manner; as this separation is legal at any other airport in the state. If I was running this sequence into edf; this would not have been a loss of separation (I would debate that it even was in this case; by my interpretation). It's ridiculous that we have 3 separation standards. At edf; we run standard separation and at anc we run recat which has two of its own separation standards. I don't think anyone would argue that our increased number of go-arounds at this airport mostly have something to do with recat. Our airport cannot handle the reduced spacing recat has based on the layout and our efficiency takes a huge hit when we need additional spacing that we don't need anywhere else. Our extreme mix of aircraft isn't the same mix that other recat airports have; so I doubt airports like memphis have issues like we do. We need to re-evaluate keeping recat because the users; controllers; and airport are not benefiting.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A11 TRACON Controller reported the new wake turbulence separation standards are decreasing the efficiency of the operations at their airport.

Narrative: I was trying to build 7 miles between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y on final when Aircraft X dropped off my scope on his landing roll. I had 6.3 miles when Aircraft X landed. After Aircraft X dropped off the scope; I cleared Aircraft Y for his ILS. With RECAT (Wake Turbulence re-categorization); a category F aircraft requires 5 miles 'directly behind' a category B; but 'on approach' needs 7 miles. Aircraft Y was never cleared; however; I did only have about 6.3 miles. Technically; I had the separation I needed when I cleared Aircraft Y; but I wanted to write this up to bring to light the issues we've had with RECAT that don't seem to be heard outside the region.RECAT has decreased our efficiency and increased our go-arounds. I did not deem this event unsafe in any manner; as this separation is legal at any other airport in the state. If I was running this sequence into EDF; this would not have been a loss of separation (I would debate that it even was in this case; by my interpretation). It's ridiculous that we have 3 separation standards. At EDF; we run standard separation and at ANC we run RECAT which has two of its own separation standards. I don't think anyone would argue that our increased number of go-arounds at this airport mostly have something to do with RECAT. Our airport cannot handle the reduced spacing RECAT has based on the layout and our efficiency takes a huge hit when we need additional spacing that we don't need anywhere else. Our extreme mix of aircraft isn't the same mix that other RECAT airports have; so I doubt airports like Memphis have issues like we do. We need to re-evaluate keeping RECAT because the users; controllers; and airport are not benefiting.

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.