Narrative:

Myself and another pilot arrived in the luk area as a flight of 2 aircraft (C172 and PA28-181). When we were on approximately a 3 mi right base for runway 25, we were required to fly a left 360 degree turn for spacing, behind a training aircraft who was not following the tower's directions. Upon completing the 360 degree turn, we were cleared to land as a flight of 2. On very short final to runway 25, I began gaining on the C172 at a greater rate of speed than anticipated. In order to maintain a safe distance, I began to perform s-turns at a fairly low altitude (300-100 ft AGL). During my last s-turn, I encountered wake turbulence from the preceding aircraft. My bank angle during the last s-turn was approximately 30 degrees in each direction, just short of the runway threshold at approximately 100 ft AGL. At no time was positive control of the airplane a concern and there was never any doubt as to safely completing the maneuver and landing. However, maneuvering of this type could have been avoided by immediately performing a 'go around,' instead of salvaging the approach and landing. Factors contributing to the decision to continue the approach and landing included: we were a flight of 2, with the lead aircraft performing all navigation and communications with the tower -- the mindset was to complete the flight as arranged. Taxiing aircraft in front of our flight of 2 did not follow directions creating additional workload for tower personnel. I did not want to add to the situation. There were additional aircraft behind us, in line to land. I knew that safety was not an issue. The result was an approach which was unstabilized and required excessive banking at a low altitude just prior to touchdown, which could have been avoided by making the decision to 'go around' once spacing became an issue.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A PA28 PLT, IN FORMATION WITH A C172, ENCOUNTERED WAKE TURB FROM THE LEAD ACFT.

Narrative: MYSELF AND ANOTHER PLT ARRIVED IN THE LUK AREA AS A FLT OF 2 ACFT (C172 AND PA28-181). WHEN WE WERE ON APPROX A 3 MI R BASE FOR RWY 25, WE WERE REQUIRED TO FLY A L 360 DEG TURN FOR SPACING, BEHIND A TRAINING ACFT WHO WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE TWR'S DIRECTIONS. UPON COMPLETING THE 360 DEG TURN, WE WERE CLRED TO LAND AS A FLT OF 2. ON VERY SHORT FINAL TO RWY 25, I BEGAN GAINING ON THE C172 AT A GREATER RATE OF SPD THAN ANTICIPATED. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A SAFE DISTANCE, I BEGAN TO PERFORM S-TURNS AT A FAIRLY LOW ALT (300-100 FT AGL). DURING MY LAST S-TURN, I ENCOUNTERED WAKE TURB FROM THE PRECEDING ACFT. MY BANK ANGLE DURING THE LAST S-TURN WAS APPROX 30 DEGS IN EACH DIRECTION, JUST SHORT OF THE RWY THRESHOLD AT APPROX 100 FT AGL. AT NO TIME WAS POSITIVE CTL OF THE AIRPLANE A CONCERN AND THERE WAS NEVER ANY DOUBT AS TO SAFELY COMPLETING THE MANEUVER AND LNDG. HOWEVER, MANEUVERING OF THIS TYPE COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY IMMEDIATELY PERFORMING A 'GAR,' INSTEAD OF SALVAGING THE APCH AND LNDG. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DECISION TO CONTINUE THE APCH AND LNDG INCLUDED: WE WERE A FLT OF 2, WITH THE LEAD ACFT PERFORMING ALL NAV AND COMS WITH THE TWR -- THE MINDSET WAS TO COMPLETE THE FLT AS ARRANGED. TAXIING ACFT IN FRONT OF OUR FLT OF 2 DID NOT FOLLOW DIRECTIONS CREATING ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD FOR TWR PERSONNEL. I DID NOT WANT TO ADD TO THE SIT. THERE WERE ADDITIONAL ACFT BEHIND US, IN LINE TO LAND. I KNEW THAT SAFETY WAS NOT AN ISSUE. THE RESULT WAS AN APCH WHICH WAS UNSTABILIZED AND REQUIRED EXCESSIVE BANKING AT A LOW ALT JUST PRIOR TO TOUCHDOWN, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY MAKING THE DECISION TO 'GAR' ONCE SPACING BECAME AN ISSUE.

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.