Narrative:

Aircraft X; E75L; on the arrival; following aircraft Y; a B737 (700 series) about 11 miles behind. The pilot said something about getting some pretty good wake turbulence and asked who they were following. I told them it was a B737 about 11 miles in front (measured 10.9). I asked aircraft Y to verify they were actually a 7 and not an 800 series; they said affirmative. I asked them if they were any heavier than normal; they said no. I went back to aircraft X to ask them if they got an un-commanded roll. They said yes; and 35 degrees (I think they said to port; it was a wing roll). I asked aircraft X if anyone had gotten hurt; he said no they had asked the flight attendants; but everyone was ok.this is the first time I've had a wake event with a 700 series. I know that the 8/9 (and A321) can generate these problems. In talking to the OM (operations manager); we had a discussion about conditions that are more conducive to making wake turbulence stronger and less amenable to dissipation such as low winds; not much shear that might cause it to break up faster.in addition to this event; I was privy (during training) of other events in the last couple of weeks. One was a CL30 following an A321 at the same altitude about 10 miles back. The other was when I was training an right side on 65 with an A320 at FL350 and a B772 at FL360. I have been telling my right side developmental to call the traffic and make sure they follow the .65 procedures of saying heavy and giving a cautionary. In this case; he did; which gave the pilots at 350 a chance to be prepared for the traffic. I know that often a 1000 feet vertically doesn't generate any wake turbulence for the lower aircraft; but in this case the pilots at 350 felt it and said 'they got rocked by the wake.'I'm giving these reports because of being told previously the FAA was looking at them; collecting data; and trying to do something about it. I think we need more training for en route controllers about wake turbulence because of the over reliance on 1000/5 [1000 feet/5 miles] and the predominant mindset of wake turbulence not being a problem; even so much for heavy aircraft; in the en route environment. These trends have shown that it a problem because of the accuracies of RNAV; the better design of the wing; and (speculation here) RNAV arrivals that change flight characteristics with the way the FMS flies the plane. Also; we need to train controllers (and probably weather people) on the conditions which could make wake turbulence more of a problem. I also recommend research (cami and others) on preceding aircraft problems that might generate more wake turbulence problems for the training aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ZAB Controller reported an E175 11 miles behind a B737-700 encountered wake turbulence causing a 35 degree un-commanded roll.

Narrative: Aircraft X; E75L; on the arrival; following Aircraft Y; a B737 (700 series) about 11 miles behind. The pilot said something about getting some pretty good wake turbulence and asked who they were following. I told them it was a B737 about 11 miles in front (measured 10.9). I asked Aircraft Y to verify they were actually a 7 and not an 800 series; they said affirmative. I asked them if they were any heavier than normal; they said no. I went back to Aircraft X to ask them if they got an un-commanded roll. They said yes; and 35 degrees (I think they said to port; it was a wing roll). I asked Aircraft X if anyone had gotten hurt; he said no they had asked the flight attendants; but everyone was OK.This is the first time I've had a wake event with a 700 series. I know that the 8/9 (and A321) can generate these problems. In talking to the OM (Operations Manager); we had a discussion about conditions that are more conducive to making wake turbulence stronger and less amenable to dissipation such as low winds; not much shear that might cause it to break up faster.In addition to this event; I was privy (during training) of other events in the last couple of weeks. One was a CL30 following an A321 at the same altitude about 10 miles back. The other was when I was training an R side on 65 with an A320 at FL350 and a B772 at FL360. I have been telling my R side developmental to call the traffic and make sure they follow the .65 procedures of saying heavy and giving a cautionary. In this case; he did; which gave the pilots at 350 a chance to be prepared for the traffic. I know that often a 1000 feet vertically doesn't generate any wake turbulence for the lower aircraft; but in this case the pilots at 350 felt it and said 'they got rocked by the wake.'I'm giving these reports because of being told previously the FAA was looking at them; collecting data; and trying to do something about it. I think we need more training for en route controllers about wake turbulence because of the over reliance on 1000/5 [1000 feet/5 miles] and the predominant mindset of wake turbulence not being a problem; even so much for heavy aircraft; in the en route environment. These trends have shown that it a problem because of the accuracies of RNAV; the better design of the wing; and (speculation here) RNAV arrivals that change flight characteristics with the way the FMS flies the plane. Also; we need to train controllers (and probably weather people) on the conditions which could make wake turbulence more of a problem. I also recommend research (CAMI and others) on preceding aircraft problems that might generate more wake turbulence problems for the training aircraft.

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.