Narrative:

On an IFR flight from naples, fl, to tpa in an small aircraft in hard instrument conditions, tpa approach guided small aircraft to an altitude of 2600' to intercept the G/south for ILS runway 36L. I also heard controller instruct another craft to intercept G/south at 3600', an air carrier medium large transport I believe. Upon interception at the IAF severe wake turbulence was encountered. Only the 100% attentiveness of the pilot and size of the aircraft avoided disaster. The controller was not aware or ignorant of the situation and should be dismissed as if this was a lighter aircraft and an inexperienced pilot, a crash would have been impossible to avoid. Upon being contacted by the tower I was notified to follow an medium large transport and replied, 'I know, I have been in its wake.' I feel like reporting this to the FAA would cause me problems as a private pilot, so I won't do it. As a member of the GA community I feel they (FAA) would figure it (better if we were not there). Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: callback indicates that the medium large transport was vectored over the top of the small aircraft by 1000' and was at least 4 mi in front of small aircraft on the approach. This is legal ATC procedure handbook sep. Appears the wake turbulence may have settled on that the small aircraft flew into it as he intercepted the G/south. Medium large transport was clearing the runway when the small aircraft broke out and small aircraft asked for and was given a sidestep to runway 36R. Reporter feels that even though this is legal sep, it is not enough.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA ENCOUNTERED WAKE TURBULENCE FROM MLG AND WAS UNHAPPY ABOUT SEPARATION CRITERIA USED.

Narrative: ON AN IFR FLT FROM NAPLES, FL, TO TPA IN AN SMA IN HARD INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS, TPA APCH GUIDED SMA TO AN ALT OF 2600' TO INTERCEPT THE G/S FOR ILS RWY 36L. I ALSO HEARD CTLR INSTRUCT ANOTHER CRAFT TO INTERCEPT G/S AT 3600', AN ACR MLG I BELIEVE. UPON INTERCEPTION AT THE IAF SEVERE WAKE TURB WAS ENCOUNTERED. ONLY THE 100% ATTENTIVENESS OF THE PLT AND SIZE OF THE ACFT AVOIDED DISASTER. THE CTLR WAS NOT AWARE OR IGNORANT OF THE SITUATION AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS IF THIS WAS A LIGHTER ACFT AND AN INEXPERIENCED PLT, A CRASH WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID. UPON BEING CONTACTED BY THE TWR I WAS NOTIFIED TO FOLLOW AN MLG AND REPLIED, 'I KNOW, I HAVE BEEN IN ITS WAKE.' I FEEL LIKE RPTING THIS TO THE FAA WOULD CAUSE ME PROBS AS A PVT PLT, SO I WON'T DO IT. AS A MEMBER OF THE GA COMMUNITY I FEEL THEY (FAA) WOULD FIGURE IT (BETTER IF WE WERE NOT THERE). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: CALLBACK INDICATES THAT THE MLG WAS VECTORED OVER THE TOP OF THE SMA BY 1000' AND WAS AT LEAST 4 MI IN FRONT OF SMA ON THE APCH. THIS IS LEGAL ATC PROC HANDBOOK SEP. APPEARS THE WAKE TURB MAY HAVE SETTLED ON THAT THE SMA FLEW INTO IT AS HE INTERCEPTED THE G/S. MLG WAS CLRING THE RWY WHEN THE SMA BROKE OUT AND SMA ASKED FOR AND WAS GIVEN A SIDESTEP TO RWY 36R. RPTR FEELS THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS LEGAL SEP, IT IS NOT ENOUGH.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.