Narrative:

On this particular evening, we were one of many turboprops departing runway 13L at intervals between aircraft arriving runway 17L. The approach path of runway 17L crosses runway 13L approximately mid-field. A SF34 crossed our departure path. We were told, 'cleared for takeoff, traffic landing runway 17L and on a 2 mi final.' immediately after takeoff we flew through the SF34's wake with a minor but noticeable bump. Prior to the opening of runway 17L at dfw, ATC representatives conducted several users conferences. I specifically asked if they had considered the possibility of wake turbulence in the above scenario. They stated they had concluded it would not be a factor. I feel that had the saab been a B757 or larger aircraft, we might have sustained structural damage or lost control. I also am of the opinion that the new procedures at dfw (airspace and runway) are decreasing safety in order to increase capacity. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this captain will refuse takeoff clrncs from runway 13L behind heavy jet arrs on runway 17L when wake turbulence separation is questionable. Also, he and fellow company pilots voice discomfort with departures from runway 13L during low visibility conditions. Operations from runway 13L during los visibility IMC are totally reliant upon the controller for traffic and wake turbulence separation, since the E120 is only equipped with tcasi. (Tcasi does not provide traffic alerting capability while the aircraft is on the ground.) 'you are taking their word for it, that the aircraft landing on runway 17 ILS, in fact on a 3 NM final, any delay in departure from runway 13L, or mistiming on anyone's part, could put both aircraft in the same place, at the same time.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN E120 FLC ENCOUNTERED WAKE TURB DURING TKOF FROM RWY 13L AT DFW. THE WAKE TURB WAS DEVELOPED BY AN SF34 THAT HAD BEEN ON A RWY 17L APCH TO LNDG PATH, AND HAD CROSSED OVER MID-FIELD OF RWY 13L. THIS RPTING CAPT EXPRESSES HIS RELATED CONCERNS ABOUT NEW RWY 17L AND ASSOCIATED PROCS.

Narrative: ON THIS PARTICULAR EVENING, WE WERE ONE OF MANY TURBOPROPS DEPARTING RWY 13L AT INTERVALS BTWN ACFT ARRIVING RWY 17L. THE APCH PATH OF RWY 17L CROSSES RWY 13L APPROX MID-FIELD. A SF34 CROSSED OUR DEP PATH. WE WERE TOLD, 'CLRED FOR TKOF, TFC LNDG RWY 17L AND ON A 2 MI FINAL.' IMMEDIATELY AFTER TKOF WE FLEW THROUGH THE SF34'S WAKE WITH A MINOR BUT NOTICEABLE BUMP. PRIOR TO THE OPENING OF RWY 17L AT DFW, ATC REPRESENTATIVES CONDUCTED SEVERAL USERS CONFERENCES. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED IF THEY HAD CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY OF WAKE TURB IN THE ABOVE SCENARIO. THEY STATED THEY HAD CONCLUDED IT WOULD NOT BE A FACTOR. I FEEL THAT HAD THE SAAB BEEN A B757 OR LARGER ACFT, WE MIGHT HAVE SUSTAINED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE OR LOST CTL. I ALSO AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE NEW PROCS AT DFW (AIRSPACE AND RWY) ARE DECREASING SAFETY IN ORDER TO INCREASE CAPACITY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS CAPT WILL REFUSE TKOF CLRNCS FROM RWY 13L BEHIND HVY JET ARRS ON RWY 17L WHEN WAKE TURB SEPARATION IS QUESTIONABLE. ALSO, HE AND FELLOW COMPANY PLTS VOICE DISCOMFORT WITH DEPS FROM RWY 13L DURING LOW VISIBILITY CONDITIONS. OPS FROM RWY 13L DURING LOS VISIBILITY IMC ARE TOTALLY RELIANT UPON THE CTLR FOR TFC AND WAKE TURB SEPARATION, SINCE THE E120 IS ONLY EQUIPPED WITH TCASI. (TCASI DOES NOT PROVIDE TFC ALERTING CAPABILITY WHILE THE ACFT IS ON THE GND.) 'YOU ARE TAKING THEIR WORD FOR IT, THAT THE ACFT LNDG ON RWY 17 ILS, IN FACT ON A 3 NM FINAL, ANY DELAY IN DEP FROM RWY 13L, OR MISTIMING ON ANYONE'S PART, COULD PUT BOTH ACFT IN THE SAME PLACE, AT THE SAME TIME.'

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.