Narrative:

A C560XL was conducting a visual approach to runway 2L. A falcon 7X aircraft was also conducting a visual approach to runway 2L in front of the C560XL. The data block for the C560XL indicated 'vs'; which meant that the aircraft had the falcon it was following in sight and was maintaining visual separation. When the C560XL called the tower on 120.9; I verified that the pilot had the falcon in sight; which the pilot confirmed; then cleared him to land on runway 2L #2. Upon crossing the numbers for runway 2L; the pilot of the C560XL said that they were going around. I instructed the aircraft to enter left traffic for 2L and cleared him to land. The aircraft landed on 2L safely. After landing; when I asked the pilot the reason for the go-around; the pilot stated that it was wake turbulence behind the falcon. It is my understanding that when an IFR aircraft accepts a visual approach and visual separation from another IFR aircraft; and that aircraft requires a wake turbulence advisory; that the advisory is given by the approach controller; according to FAA order 7110.65; 2-1-20 a2. Therefore I felt it was redundant to issue the wake turbulence advisory to the C560XL again.in the future I will give wake turbulence advisories to aircraft that require them; regardless of whether or not the advisory may have been given by a previous controller. I should not have assumed that the advisory had already been given; and it would not have caused any harm other than frequency congestion to reissue the advisory to the citation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DPA Local Controller stated a C560XL reported encountering wake turbulence on approach in trail of a Falcon 7X.

Narrative: A C560XL was conducting a visual approach to Runway 2L. A Falcon 7X aircraft was also conducting a visual approach to Runway 2L in front of the C560XL. The data block for the C560XL indicated 'VS'; which meant that the aircraft had the Falcon it was following in sight and was maintaining visual separation. When the C560XL called the Tower on 120.9; I verified that the pilot had the Falcon in sight; which the pilot confirmed; then cleared him to land on Runway 2L #2. Upon crossing the numbers for Runway 2L; the pilot of the C560XL said that they were going around. I instructed the aircraft to enter left traffic for 2L and cleared him to land. The aircraft landed on 2L safely. After landing; when I asked the pilot the reason for the go-around; the pilot stated that it was wake turbulence behind the Falcon. It is my understanding that when an IFR aircraft accepts a visual approach and visual separation from another IFR aircraft; and that aircraft requires a wake turbulence advisory; that the advisory is given by the Approach Controller; according to FAA Order 7110.65; 2-1-20 a2. Therefore I felt it was redundant to issue the wake turbulence advisory to the C560XL again.In the future I will give wake turbulence advisories to aircraft that require them; regardless of whether or not the advisory may have been given by a previous controller. I should not have assumed that the advisory had already been given; and it would not have caused any harm other than frequency congestion to reissue the advisory to the Citation.

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.