Narrative:

I was training on final radar and we were working a C208 [aircraft X] behind a [boeing] [aircraft Y] which requires 7 miles on approach. We had matched speeds but the spacing was slowly increasing. We had the C208 on the runway 7L localizer level at 020 while aircraft Y continued on the ILS approach to runway 7R. When the 7 miles later was achieved and observed using the measuring tools on the radar scope; we cleared aircraft X for the ILS to runway 7L with the lateral spacing requirement achieved. We used more than the required recat 'directly behind' separation as well as altitude until we achieved what we needed for lateral 'on approach'. According to the live scope; we had no loss. Anc tower supervisor called to tell us they were breaking out aircraft X because they didn't believe we had 7 miles. This is a common practice at this facility due to the extreme mix of aircraft types. This was not unsafe: at ZZZ; 5 increasing to 6 miles is required on that final. We did not clear aircraft X until we saw 7.00 on the scope (using *t). 7 miles was achieved prior to aircraft Y dropping off our radar. I believe non-radar separation standards were also achieved. - Either require recat everywhere or nowhere. We have three different set of separation standards to use in our airspace which is absolutely ridiculous. - Fire the supervisor in the tower for incompetency.- if equipment doesn't show what the live radar is showing; they need better equipment. Our data should be the most accurate; otherwise we shouldn't be able to legally use the tools we used correctly in this instance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TRACON Controller reported a separation issue relate to wake turbulence separation and reclassification of separation.

Narrative: I was training on final radar and we were working a C208 [Aircraft X] behind a [Boeing] [Aircraft Y] which requires 7 miles on approach. We had matched speeds but the spacing was slowly increasing. We had the C208 on the RWY 7L localizer level at 020 while Aircraft Y continued on the ILS approach to Runway 7R. When the 7 miles later was achieved and observed using the measuring tools on the radar scope; we cleared Aircraft X for the ILS to Runway 7L with the lateral spacing requirement achieved. We used more than the required recat 'directly behind' separation as well as altitude until we achieved what we needed for lateral 'on approach'. According to the live scope; we had no loss. ANC Tower Supervisor called to tell us they were breaking out Aircraft X because they didn't believe we had 7 miles. This is a common practice at this facility due to the extreme mix of aircraft types. This was not unsafe: at ZZZ; 5 increasing to 6 miles is required on that final. We did not clear Aircraft X until we saw 7.00 on the scope (using *t). 7 miles was achieved prior to Aircraft Y dropping off our radar. I believe non-radar separation standards were also achieved. - Either require recat everywhere or nowhere. We have three different set of separation standards to use in our airspace which is absolutely ridiculous. - Fire the Supervisor in the Tower for incompetency.- If equipment doesn't show what the live radar is showing; they need better equipment. Our data should be the most accurate; otherwise we shouldn't be able to legally use the tools we used correctly in this instance.

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.