Narrative:

Flight from santa catalina VFR dusk into san. At mt solidad cleared to follow B757 on visual runway 27. I fly into san frequently, and I offer to keep 170 KTS until about 3 NM (my gear speed is 140) to fit into approach flow. I also know about the wake characteristics of the B757, so I am careful to stay above its glidepath and ask for a long landing, which is approved by tower. All smooth until short final (gear and flaps set to schedule) when tower clears an MD80 for immediate takeoff. I can't believe it! What now? If I stay high, I eat the wake of the departing md-80, if I want to go below it, I need to go through the B757 wake - - or I go around, mess up the pattern, infuriate the controller, and pay for it next time I come into san. Fine choice. I decide to stay slightly high and upwind of approach path. Still the wake is quite heavy (squeaking passenger and such) and I have to touch down long to make a safe landing. I am too fed up to call tower and notify them of the bad situation they helped to create. I feel that a situation like this can be avoided. First, ATC should not squeeze another large aircraft in for takeoff if a small airplane is following a heavy. The 3 mi separation behind the heavy makes sense, and squeezing a departing large aircraft in may be fine and legal as far as the ATC's handbook is concerned, but it sure is rude and not very thoughtful. Second, I think one should indeed reject the landing in such a situation, go around and explain to ATC why. They may be fed up, but I found that a clarifying call to the tower manager usually helps. I still feel that there is a loophole in the wake separation standards permitting such a practice. The trailing pilot has to make a plan to avoid a heavy's wake, and I want to be sure that I can rely on my 3 NM separation. I understand that there is no such requirement behind a large aircraft and it appears perfectly legal to place a large aircraft's wake in between these 3 NM, but it sure does follow only the letter of the law, and not the spirit. Also, if I try to cooperate with ATC by keeping speeds up to fit into a transport jet pattern, then I do not want stunts like that pulled on me. I guess they just do not realize what problems can be created for small airplanes by such a procedure. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states he was extremely shaken by the event. He will never continue to landing in such a situation again. He will make a go around and take the consequences. He feels strongly about the maintaining of established separation of a GA aircraft behind an air carrier. Allowing the md-80 departure put him in a total dilemma regarding his avoidance of wake turbulence: land long, land short, stay high, stay low. Not very good options here. Reporter seems very concerned about future consequences if he complains too much. Perhaps due to a very recognizable accent.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C310 LNDG ENCOUNTERED WAKE TURB BEHIND LNDG B757 AND DEPARTING MD-80.

Narrative: FLT FROM SANTA CATALINA VFR DUSK INTO SAN. AT MT SOLIDAD CLRED TO FOLLOW B757 ON VISUAL RWY 27. I FLY INTO SAN FREQUENTLY, AND I OFFER TO KEEP 170 KTS UNTIL ABOUT 3 NM (MY GEAR SPD IS 140) TO FIT INTO APCH FLOW. I ALSO KNOW ABOUT THE WAKE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE B757, SO I AM CAREFUL TO STAY ABOVE ITS GLIDEPATH AND ASK FOR A LONG LNDG, WHICH IS APPROVED BY TWR. ALL SMOOTH UNTIL SHORT FINAL (GEAR AND FLAPS SET TO SCHEDULE) WHEN TWR CLRS AN MD80 FOR IMMEDIATE TKOF. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! WHAT NOW? IF I STAY HIGH, I EAT THE WAKE OF THE DEPARTING MD-80, IF I WANT TO GO BELOW IT, I NEED TO GO THROUGH THE B757 WAKE - - OR I GAR, MESS UP THE PATTERN, INFURIATE THE CTLR, AND PAY FOR IT NEXT TIME I COME INTO SAN. FINE CHOICE. I DECIDE TO STAY SLIGHTLY HIGH AND UPWIND OF APCH PATH. STILL THE WAKE IS QUITE HVY (SQUEAKING PAX AND SUCH) AND I HAVE TO TOUCH DOWN LONG TO MAKE A SAFE LNDG. I AM TOO FED UP TO CALL TWR AND NOTIFY THEM OF THE BAD SIT THEY HELPED TO CREATE. I FEEL THAT A SIT LIKE THIS CAN BE AVOIDED. FIRST, ATC SHOULD NOT SQUEEZE ANOTHER LARGE ACFT IN FOR TKOF IF A SMALL AIRPLANE IS FOLLOWING A HVY. THE 3 MI SEPARATION BEHIND THE HVY MAKES SENSE, AND SQUEEZING A DEPARTING LARGE ACFT IN MAY BE FINE AND LEGAL AS FAR AS THE ATC'S HANDBOOK IS CONCERNED, BUT IT SURE IS RUDE AND NOT VERY THOUGHTFUL. SECOND, I THINK ONE SHOULD INDEED REJECT THE LNDG IN SUCH A SIT, GAR AND EXPLAIN TO ATC WHY. THEY MAY BE FED UP, BUT I FOUND THAT A CLARIFYING CALL TO THE TWR MGR USUALLY HELPS. I STILL FEEL THAT THERE IS A LOOPHOLE IN THE WAKE SEPARATION STANDARDS PERMITTING SUCH A PRACTICE. THE TRAILING PLT HAS TO MAKE A PLAN TO AVOID A HVY'S WAKE, AND I WANT TO BE SURE THAT I CAN RELY ON MY 3 NM SEPARATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH REQUIREMENT BEHIND A LARGE ACFT AND IT APPEARS PERFECTLY LEGAL TO PLACE A LARGE ACFT'S WAKE IN BTWN THESE 3 NM, BUT IT SURE DOES FOLLOW ONLY THE LETTER OF THE LAW, AND NOT THE SPIRIT. ALSO, IF I TRY TO COOPERATE WITH ATC BY KEEPING SPDS UP TO FIT INTO A TRANSPORT JET PATTERN, THEN I DO NOT WANT STUNTS LIKE THAT PULLED ON ME. I GUESS THEY JUST DO NOT REALIZE WHAT PROBS CAN BE CREATED FOR SMALL AIRPLANES BY SUCH A PROC. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES HE WAS EXTREMELY SHAKEN BY THE EVENT. HE WILL NEVER CONTINUE TO LNDG IN SUCH A SIT AGAIN. HE WILL MAKE A GAR AND TAKE THE CONSEQUENCES. HE FEELS STRONGLY ABOUT THE MAINTAINING OF ESTABLISHED SEPARATION OF A GA ACFT BEHIND AN ACR. ALLOWING THE MD-80 DEP PUT HIM IN A TOTAL DILEMMA REGARDING HIS AVOIDANCE OF WAKE TURB: LAND LONG, LAND SHORT, STAY HIGH, STAY LOW. NOT VERY GOOD OPTIONS HERE. RPTR SEEMS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT FUTURE CONSEQUENCES IF HE COMPLAINS TOO MUCH. PERHAPS DUE TO A VERY RECOGNIZABLE ACCENT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.