A mke TRACON controller reported they vectored two approaches to parallel runways with less than sta...

Attributes
ACN	1545128
Time
Date	201805
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	MKE.TRACON
State Reference	WI
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Military
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	Descent
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 7/8
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	Cruise
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 3
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy

Narrative:

Aircraft X was being vectored for a visual approach to the right runway; aircraft Y was being vectored for a visual approach to the left runway. I had altitude between the two aircraft. Aircraft Y was at 4;000 feet; aircraft X was at 5;000 feet. I think I turned aircraft Y to a 140 heading so I could turn aircraft X to a 160 heading and descend them on their base leg. I'm not sure that I had given aircraft Y 140 or 150 heading when aircraft X started his descent out of 5;000 feet. I turned aircraft Y to a 130 heading. Aircraft X was cleared for the visual approach. Aircraft Y was turned to a 100 heading to intercept final for the left runway before being cleared for the visual approach. Aircraft Y had aircraft X in sight; but we are not supposed to use pilot applied visual separation for the parallel runway approaches.next time instead of trying to vector them close to the marker and run the parallel approach I would just give myself more room. At the time I had other aircraft inbound that I was trying not to delay. Aircraft X could have gone further out before turning base and gone in behind aircraft Y.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A MKE TRACON Controller reported they vectored two approaches to parallel runways with less than standard separation.

Narrative: Aircraft X was being vectored for a Visual Approach to the right runway; Aircraft Y was being vectored for a Visual Approach to the left runway. I had altitude between the two aircraft. Aircraft Y was at 4;000 feet; Aircraft X was at 5;000 feet. I think I turned Aircraft Y to a 140 heading so I could turn Aircraft X to a 160 heading and descend them on their base leg. I'm not sure that I had given Aircraft Y 140 or 150 heading when Aircraft X started his descent out of 5;000 feet. I turned Aircraft Y to a 130 heading. Aircraft X was cleared for the Visual Approach. Aircraft Y was turned to a 100 heading to intercept final for the left runway before being cleared for the Visual Approach. Aircraft Y had Aircraft X in sight; but we are not supposed to use pilot applied Visual Separation for the parallel runway approaches.Next time instead of trying to vector them close to the marker and run the parallel approach I would just give myself more room. At the time I had other aircraft inbound that I was trying not to delay. Aircraft X could have gone further out before turning base and gone in behind Aircraft Y.

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.

A mke TRACON controller reported they vectored two approaches to parallel runways with less than standard separation.