Narrative:

I was on ground control and taxied a BE20 to the active runway. Half way through their taxi; they requested an intersection departure. I coordinated with local control to send a [small transport] category aircraft to the intersection since there was multiple aircraft at intersections more than 500 feet away and it would cause a wake turbulence hold. Local control approved it and I assigned [the BE20] an intersection departure. They were then cleared for takeoff however; the C152s at an intersection were immediately cleared for takeoff with only a cautionary wake turbulence advisory and were not held for the 3-minute requirement and the pilots did not waive it. The faah 7110.65 states in paragraph. 3-9-7 that the time interval is not required when the intersection is 500 feet or less from the departure point of the proceeding aircraft; however; the difference between these two intersections is 1200 feet. The local controller expressed their opinion that since their intersection is further down the runway then that means there is no wake turbulence and that the faah 7110.65 is wrong. However; it does not state whether or not if the larger aircraft departures further downfield if that matters or not it simple states departure point. Therefore; there needs to be a 3-minute wake turbulence hold in order to comply with the 7110.65's wake turbulence rules for intersection departures. Ten minutes later local control conducted a position relief briefing and a new controller was working local control. I coordinated with them for a C560 [light transport] aircraft to taxi for an intersection departure; or I said I can take them across the runway for a full-length departure since there would be a wake turbulence hold for the 3 C152s.they said the intersection departure was fine; so I sent C560 there. The local controller cleared the C560 for takeoff; then proceeded to clear the rest of the intersection departures for takeoff with no wake turbulence holds; and did not inform any of the aircraft to hold for wake turbulence. The controller did issue a cautionary wake turbulence advisory for the departed citation. This is a common occurrence that I see here. I have brought it up to the supervisors and they have informed people of the rules yet the controllers just don't care. They keep saying that since the large aircraft departed further down the runway that the intersections behind them do not have wake turbulence holds. I understand their logic and agree with them that it doesn't make sense; but I take the faah 7110.65 literally and follow the rules prescribed in there and believe that they are incorrect and are choosing to break rules for efficiency and to ignore what they don't agree with even that it clearly states the rules and that there is a wake turbulence hold.if this is not the way the way wake turbulence for intersection departures is supposed to be applied then I suggest the amend the 7110.65 to clarify if the intersection departure is 'behind' the point of departure from the large aircraft that there is no wake turbulence hold just an advisory. If we are still supposed to apply the mandatory wake turbulence hold then I think my facility needs a national mandatory briefing about wake turbulence for intersection departures focusing on this specific scenario. I would say 90% of my facility breaks this rule every time they have a [small transport] /larger depart from an intersection.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Ground Controller observed the Local Controller clear aircraft for intersection takeoffs with less than required Wake Turbulence separation.

Narrative: I was on Ground Control and taxied a BE20 to the active runway. Half way through their taxi; they requested an intersection departure. I coordinated with Local Control to send a [Small Transport] category aircraft to the intersection since there was multiple aircraft at intersections more than 500 feet away and it would cause a wake turbulence hold. Local Control approved it and I assigned [the BE20] an intersection departure. They were then cleared for takeoff however; the C152s at an intersection were immediately cleared for takeoff with only a cautionary wake turbulence advisory and were not held for the 3-minute requirement and the pilots did not waive it. The FAAH 7110.65 states in Paragraph. 3-9-7 that the time interval is not required when the intersection is 500 feet or less from the DEPARTURE POINT of the proceeding aircraft; however; the difference between these two intersections is 1200 feet. The Local Controller expressed their opinion that since their intersection is further down the runway then that means there is no wake turbulence and that the FAAH 7110.65 is wrong. However; it does not state whether or not if the larger aircraft departures further downfield if that matters or not it simple states departure point. Therefore; there needs to be a 3-minute wake turbulence hold in order to comply with the 7110.65's wake turbulence rules for intersection departures. Ten minutes later Local Control conducted a position relief briefing and a new controller was working Local Control. I coordinated with them for a C560 [Light Transport] aircraft to taxi for an intersection departure; or I said I can take them across the runway for a full-length departure since there would be a wake turbulence hold for the 3 C152s.They said the intersection departure was fine; so I sent C560 there. The Local Controller cleared the C560 for takeoff; then proceeded to clear the rest of the intersection departures for takeoff with no wake turbulence holds; and did not inform any of the aircraft to hold for wake turbulence. The controller did issue a cautionary wake turbulence advisory for the departed Citation. This is a common occurrence that I see here. I have brought it up to the supervisors and they have informed people of the rules yet the controllers just don't care. They keep saying that since the large aircraft departed further down the runway that the intersections behind them do not have wake turbulence holds. I understand their logic and agree with them that it doesn't make sense; but I take the FAAH 7110.65 literally and follow the rules prescribed in there and believe that they are incorrect and are choosing to break rules for efficiency and to ignore what they don't agree with even that it clearly states the rules and that there is a wake turbulence hold.If this is not the way the way wake turbulence for intersection departures is supposed to be applied then I suggest the amend the 7110.65 to clarify if the intersection departure is 'behind' the point of departure from the large aircraft that there is no wake turbulence hold just an advisory. If we are still supposed to apply the mandatory wake turbulence hold then I think my facility needs a national mandatory briefing about wake turbulence for intersection departures focusing on this specific scenario. I would say 90% of my facility breaks this rule every time they have a [Small Transport] /Larger depart from an intersection.

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.