Class D arrival WT

MJ

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
3,157
In a class D tower, is radar wake turbulence separation applicable between a larger VFR a/c followed by a smaller IFR a/c on final?
Why or why not.

the short answer is aircraft would not receive radar separation from the VFR tower, in accordance with 5-5-4. Chapter 5 is radar separation and VFR tower controllers are normally not operating under Chapter 5, Radar. However, wake turbulence procedures still apply in accordance with 2-2-19&20 and 3-10-3, which are advisory in nature. The inbound IFR would receive the approach clearance from radar approach control and communication would be transferred to the tower (typically, at least 7 to 10 miles out). Radar Approach may not even know what type aircraft is in the VFR pattern. Either way, the requirement would be for the tower to ensure Wake Turbulence advisories with the VFR aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Do you tell every VFR pattern guy to maintain visual separation from the traffic he's following?
Nope, I can only think of two scenarios when I tell a VFR to maintain visual separation:
1. pattern traffic with a larger weight class departing in front and I won't have 3 minutes,
2. when I won't have the required mileage on an practice approach and the pilot sees the traffic he's following.
 
Yes but visual is for IFR in lieu of other separation. We never tell VFRs to maintain visual separation
Like it or not, it is the only IFR originated rule that applies to VFR aircraft for runway based wake turbulence separation, and it does apply.

There was a guy that retired out of ACT a while back that did extensive research on this subject. He asked how do you apply an IFR rule to VFR aircraft? Apparently is was convincing enough it slipped through, got published and then immediately retracted.

YOU don't know if the pilot is maintaining visual separation just because he has the lead larger aircraft in sight. The trailing aircraft has to say "I have that traffic in sight, and will maintain visual separation" or YOU have to instruct them to "maintain visual separation." That is the letter you will be judged by if the NTSB ever investigates an accident that involved this situation.
 
Either have the Cessna report traffic in sight and tell him to maintain visual separation, caution wake turbulence OR clear him low approach only.
You don't have to say 'maintain visual' in this situation anymore. But we also do it this way - getting the pattern traffic to report visual and just give a cautionary. If he doesn't see him then there's no T+G for 3 minutes.
 
You don't have to say 'maintain visual' in this situation anymore. But we also do it this way - getting the pattern traffic to report visual and just give a cautionary. If he doesn't see him then there's no T+G for 3 minutes.
I was trying to argue that. Even took it to my FLM, who said guidance came down from region that we didn't have to say that a couple years back.
 
To put a bow on this topic. I contacted FSDO, who forwarded to ATO, the original question. The relevant excerpt from the reply is below.

the short answer is aircraft would not receive radar separation from the VFR tower, in accordance with 5-5-4. Chapter 5 is radar separation and VFR tower controllers are normally not operating under Chapter 5, Radar. However, wake turbulence procedures still apply in accordance with 2-2-19&20 and 3-10-3, which are advisory in nature. The inbound IFR would receive the approach clearance from radar approach control and communication would be transferred to the tower (typically, at least 7 to 10 miles out). Radar Approach may not even know what type aircraft is in the VFR pattern. Either way, the requirement would be for the tower to ensure Wake Turbulence advisories with the VFR aircraft.
 
Back
Top Bottom