Narrative:

Flight XXX in a DO328 on approach to runway 32 at pittsburgh international airport. 32 passenger were on board and we were in night VMC conditions being vectored for an ILS to runway 32. The controller told us that our traffic was a B757, 5 mi ahead, and asked if we had him in sight. When we stated that we did the controller said 'cleared the visual, maintain 170 KTS to the marker, and contact tower.' about 20 seconds later after we completed our turn to final I noted on the TCASII that we were not 5 mi but 2 1/4 mi behind the B757. We maintained 1 DOT high and left of course to avoid the wake. When we had to align with the runway for landing severe wake turbulence caused us to go around. I am very concerned when controllers violate spacing and then lie to the aircraft they are controling to get them to accept the visual. Supervisory personnel at pittsburgh approach allow this to happen frequently. I have been told by controllers at pittsburgh that if they can't handle the traffic that they will be replaced. I do not understand how the FAA can condone violating regulations when safety of passenger are involved, just to work a larger volume of traffic than can be safely done. Getting aircraft too close and then clearing them for the visual seems to be a technique used at pittsburgh approach. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated his aircraft had the advanced automated cockpit. He stated when he turned base to final there was not the 5 mi the controller claimed. Shown on his TCASII was only 2 1/4 mi. The controller also assigned 170 KTS which seemed faster than the aircraft he was supposed to maintain spacing on. The reporter said he has experienced more violent and larger roll excursions but never so close to the ground. The roll was about 20 degrees to the left and about the time he got the wings back level it rolled 20 degrees to the right whereupon he decided to go around.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE CTLR STATED THE TFC HE WAS FOLLOWING WAS A B757 AT 5 MI. THE RPTR STAYED HIGH BUT ENCOUNTERED WAKE AT 300 FT AGL AND WENT AROUND.

Narrative: FLT XXX IN A DO328 ON APCH TO RWY 32 AT PITTSBURGH INTL ARPT. 32 PAX WERE ON BOARD AND WE WERE IN NIGHT VMC CONDITIONS BEING VECTORED FOR AN ILS TO RWY 32. THE CTLR TOLD US THAT OUR TFC WAS A B757, 5 MI AHEAD, AND ASKED IF WE HAD HIM IN SIGHT. WHEN WE STATED THAT WE DID THE CTLR SAID 'CLRED THE VISUAL, MAINTAIN 170 KTS TO THE MARKER, AND CONTACT TWR.' ABOUT 20 SECONDS LATER AFTER WE COMPLETED OUR TURN TO FINAL I NOTED ON THE TCASII THAT WE WERE NOT 5 MI BUT 2 1/4 MI BEHIND THE B757. WE MAINTAINED 1 DOT HIGH AND L OF COURSE TO AVOID THE WAKE. WHEN WE HAD TO ALIGN WITH THE RWY FOR LNDG SEVERE WAKE TURB CAUSED US TO GAR. I AM VERY CONCERNED WHEN CTLRS VIOLATE SPACING AND THEN LIE TO THE ACFT THEY ARE CTLING TO GET THEM TO ACCEPT THE VISUAL. SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL AT PITTSBURGH APCH ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN FREQUENTLY. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY CTLRS AT PITTSBURGH THAT IF THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TFC THAT THEY WILL BE REPLACED. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE FAA CAN CONDONE VIOLATING REGS WHEN SAFETY OF PAX ARE INVOLVED, JUST TO WORK A LARGER VOLUME OF TFC THAN CAN BE SAFELY DONE. GETTING ACFT TOO CLOSE AND THEN CLRING THEM FOR THE VISUAL SEEMS TO BE A TECHNIQUE USED AT PITTSBURGH APCH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED HIS ACFT HAD THE ADVANCED AUTOMATED COCKPIT. HE STATED WHEN HE TURNED BASE TO FINAL THERE WAS NOT THE 5 MI THE CTLR CLAIMED. SHOWN ON HIS TCASII WAS ONLY 2 1/4 MI. THE CTLR ALSO ASSIGNED 170 KTS WHICH SEEMED FASTER THAN THE ACFT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN SPACING ON. THE RPTR SAID HE HAS EXPERIENCED MORE VIOLENT AND LARGER ROLL EXCURSIONS BUT NEVER SO CLOSE TO THE GND. THE ROLL WAS ABOUT 20 DEGS TO THE L AND ABOUT THE TIME HE GOT THE WINGS BACK LEVEL IT ROLLED 20 DEGS TO THE R WHEREUPON HE DECIDED TO GAR.

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.