Narrative:

I was working the south final during triple approachs to runways 8L; 9R and 10. I had an aircraft on downwind and one on base which appeared to be conflicting. I noticed a large gap between the arrs of runways 8L and 9R and decided to turn the downwind aircraft's base sooner than normal. When I turned air carrier X (B737) base to stagger between the runways 8L and 9R arrs it looked good. When I cleared air carrier X for the approach; the separation appeared appropriate. I noticed air carrier X go through the runway 10 localizer and instructed him to continue his turn to the localizer and caution wake turbulence from the heavy B767 (air carrier Y) on runway 9R. The pilot stated that the wind blew him through and he was correcting. It appeared that I kept the stagger of 3 mi separation between all aircraft involved. When I was relieved of my position approximately 30 mins later; I was told that there was a possible error. In the initial viewing; it appeared clean until they noticed the aircraft on runway 9R was a heavy. Air carrier X went through the runway 10 localizer; but not the runway 9R localizer. But according to the note in the 7110.65S 5-5-4E: '1) when applying wake turbulence separation criteria; directly behind means an aircraft is operating within 2500 ft of the flight path of the leading aircraft over the surface of the earth;' which says that air carrier X may have been subjected to air carrier Y's wake turbulence. I was not aware of the addition of the note. I believed that I was clean since air carrier X did not go through air carrier Y's flight path. I don't believe air carrier X was subjected to any wake turbulence due to the fact that the wind was out of the south between 30-40 KTS. Air carrier X was above air carrier Y most of the time and 3 mi behind him.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A80 CONTROLLER EXPERIENCED OPERATIONAL ERROR WHEN FAILING TO PROVIDE HEAVY JET SEPARATION DURING TRIPLE APPROACH PROCEDURES AT ATL.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING THE S FINAL DURING TRIPLE APCHS TO RWYS 8L; 9R AND 10. I HAD AN ACFT ON DOWNWIND AND ONE ON BASE WHICH APPEARED TO BE CONFLICTING. I NOTICED A LARGE GAP BTWN THE ARRS OF RWYS 8L AND 9R AND DECIDED TO TURN THE DOWNWIND ACFT'S BASE SOONER THAN NORMAL. WHEN I TURNED ACR X (B737) BASE TO STAGGER BTWN THE RWYS 8L AND 9R ARRS IT LOOKED GOOD. WHEN I CLRED ACR X FOR THE APCH; THE SEPARATION APPEARED APPROPRIATE. I NOTICED ACR X GO THROUGH THE RWY 10 LOC AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO CONTINUE HIS TURN TO THE LOC AND CAUTION WAKE TURB FROM THE HVY B767 (ACR Y) ON RWY 9R. THE PLT STATED THAT THE WIND BLEW HIM THROUGH AND HE WAS CORRECTING. IT APPEARED THAT I KEPT THE STAGGER OF 3 MI SEPARATION BTWN ALL ACFT INVOLVED. WHEN I WAS RELIEVED OF MY POSITION APPROX 30 MINS LATER; I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBLE ERROR. IN THE INITIAL VIEWING; IT APPEARED CLEAN UNTIL THEY NOTICED THE ACFT ON RWY 9R WAS A HVY. ACR X WENT THROUGH THE RWY 10 LOC; BUT NOT THE RWY 9R LOC. BUT ACCORDING TO THE NOTE IN THE 7110.65S 5-5-4E: '1) WHEN APPLYING WAKE TURB SEPARATION CRITERIA; DIRECTLY BEHIND MEANS AN ACFT IS OPERATING WITHIN 2500 FT OF THE FLT PATH OF THE LEADING ACFT OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH;' WHICH SAYS THAT ACR X MAY HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO ACR Y'S WAKE TURB. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ADDITION OF THE NOTE. I BELIEVED THAT I WAS CLEAN SINCE ACR X DID NOT GO THROUGH ACR Y'S FLT PATH. I DON'T BELIEVE ACR X WAS SUBJECTED TO ANY WAKE TURB DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE WIND WAS OUT OF THE S BTWN 30-40 KTS. ACR X WAS ABOVE ACR Y MOST OF THE TIME AND 3 MI BEHIND HIM.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.