What;s up with that?

[dc3flyer]

Today I am flying into an airport, on the ILS approach, and the Approach controller gives me a "Caution wake turbulence, you are 8 miles behind a regional jet". I got a little laugh! Then when we contact tower, we get the "Caution..." line again.

My question is, since when does another jet (a Hawker) have to be told to caution the wake of a regional jet?

 

[TripSix]

Today I am flying into an airport, on the ILS approach, and the Approach controller gives me a "Caution wake turbulence, you are 8 miles behind a regional jet". I got a little laugh! Then when we contact tower, we get the "Caution..." line again.

My question is, since when does another jet (a Hawker) have to be told to caution the wake of a regional jet?

Small behind a large. Sounds like someone's cautionary information "opinion" has been shaped to include 8 MIT. With some of the "flavors of the week" that shape our "opinions/judgment," as of late - I can't say I'm shocked.

 

[MikeD]

Today I am flying into an airport, on the ILS approach, and the Approach controller gives me a "Caution wake turbulence, you are 8 miles behind a regional jet". I got a little laugh! Then when we contact tower, we get the "Caution..." line again.

My question is, since when does another jet (a Hawker) have to be told to caution the wake of a regional jet?

Would your thread title be "Damn controllers didn't bother to tell me about wake turbulence possibility today!," had you hit some wake turbulence of his and they didn't tell you? I think they were just being on the safe side. Wake turbulence is wake turbulence, though I haven't often heard it called out between similar sized jets, I still hear that every so often. And definitely between dissimilar sized jets.

 

[csmith_txatc]

According to "the book", it's a Small+ behind a large and required. One of those awesome "no time limit" cautionaries. Gotta love people writing rules who have never been plugged in a day in their lives.

 

[dc3flyer]

I was really just curious. I have flown many approaches behind regional jets and have never been given a WT warning before, so getting it twice on the same approach was odd for me.

 

[Juliet Lima]

According to "the book", it's a Small+ behind a large and required. One of those awesome "no time limit" cautionaries. Gotta love people writing rules who have never been plugged in a day in their lives.

this cautionary is NOT required. it would be "required" if the S+ (hawker) accepted a visual approach behind the L (RJ).

however, if in the controllers OPINION, the situation warranted a cautionary then it can/should be issued. someone at that facility probably got pinged on a wake turbulence cautionary issue and now the knee jerk reaction is to issue it excessively.

2-1-20. WAKE TURBULENCE CAUTIONARY ADVISORIES
a. Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories and the position, altitude if known, and direction of flight of the heavy jet or B757 to:
1. TERMINAL. VFR aircraft not being radar vectored but are behind heavy jets or B757s.
2. IFR aircraft that accept a visual approach or visual separation.
3. TERMINAL. VFR arriving aircraft that have previously been radar vectored and the vectoring has been discontinued.
b. Issue cautionary information to any aircraft if in your opinion, wake turbulence may have an adverse effect on it. When traffic is known to be a heavy aircraft, include the word heavy in the description.

the first bold quote is what csmith txatc is talking about. but, if the aircraft is on an ILS approach (or in this case following only a large) and your providing IFR/wake turbulence separation then you don't need to bother with a cautionary. so that's why in this case it isn't warranted.

however, the second bold quote says that if EVER the controllers OPINION warrants a cautionary then you can issue it...but not required.