Narrative:

A BE33 at 030 left downwind for ILS runway 1L approach; overtaking [him] at 040 was [an md-80]; on left downwind runway 1R visual approach. Traffic was issued to both aircraft; [md-80] reported BE33 in sight; I turned [md-80] base simultaneously with BE33 and instructed [md-80] to maintain visual separation from BE33 cleared visual approach runway 1R. [Md-80] read back 'wilco cleared visual approach runway 1R'. Next transmission was to BE33 that the md-80 has him in sight and is maintaining visual separation; BE33 immediately reported [md-80] in sight and I issued cautionary wake turbulence advisory and maintain visual separation from md-80. BE33 read back 'will maintain visual separation from the md-80.' at this point [md-80] was one mile ahead of the BE33 and began descending. At one point; the BE33 was one mile or less in trail of the md-80 and the md-80 was approximately 500 feet above. Once the BE33 was on final and cleared for ILS runway 1L he reported experiencing the wake of [the md-80]. I was concerned with the slow moving BE33 and multiple jet arrivals inbound. The positioning of both aircraft was awkward and [the md-80] reporting the traffic in sight 'baited' me to utilize pilot-applied visual separation. I should have carried out my initial plan to have [the md-80] intercept final one thousand feet above BE33 on runway 1R then clear him for the visual approach.this situation and my actions are not for best practice and an extreme disservice to the IFR BE33. Pilot-applied visual separation should not be our primary course of action especially considering the effects of wake turbulence.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller reported he was not happy with his decision on aircraft spacing after a small airplane began experiencing wake turbulence in trail of an MD-80.

Narrative: A BE33 at 030 left downwind for ILS Runway 1L approach; overtaking [him] at 040 was [an MD-80]; on left downwind Runway 1R visual approach. Traffic was issued to both aircraft; [MD-80] reported BE33 in sight; I turned [MD-80] base simultaneously with BE33 and instructed [MD-80] to maintain visual separation from BE33 cleared visual approach Runway 1R. [MD-80] read back 'Wilco cleared visual approach Runway 1R'. Next transmission was to BE33 that the MD-80 has him in sight and is maintaining visual separation; BE33 immediately reported [MD-80] in sight and I issued cautionary wake turbulence advisory and maintain visual separation from MD-80. BE33 read back 'Will maintain visual separation from the MD-80.' At this point [MD-80] was one mile ahead of the BE33 and began descending. At one point; the BE33 was one mile or less in trail of the MD-80 and the MD-80 was approximately 500 feet above. Once the BE33 was on final and cleared for ILS Runway 1L he reported experiencing the wake of [the MD-80]. I was concerned with the slow moving BE33 and multiple jet arrivals inbound. The positioning of both aircraft was awkward and [the MD-80] reporting the traffic in sight 'baited' me to utilize pilot-applied visual separation. I should have carried out my initial plan to have [the MD-80] intercept final one thousand feet above BE33 on Runway 1R then clear him for the visual approach.This situation and my actions are not for best practice and an extreme disservice to the IFR BE33. Pilot-applied visual separation should not be our primary course of action especially considering the effects of wake turbulence.

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.