Narrative:

Vectored on a base for the ILS 4R; we had a few 30 degree bank fluctuations due to wake turbulence. We asked whom we were following - we were behind a heavy DC10. We told them we wanted more spacing so they gave us a speed reduction of 180 KTS. We were also given a heading of 040 which put us parallel to the localizer course. I queried approach about the heading. She said she gave us 010 to intercept; but we both had heard 040. We turned and intercepted on a 010 heading. The winds were blowing almost straight at us at 42 KTS at 2;000 ft. We were IMC; but I could see our spacing on TCAS. We had been cleared for the approach at this point and switched to tower. The DC10 reported a speed of 150; so we slowed to our final ref speed of 145. We were about 5.5 miles behind the DC10. The tower controller then asked what our speed was and if we had been assigned a speed to maintain by the previous controller. Once we had been cleared for the approach; we had not been told to maintain any particular speed to the marker; so I replied that we had not been given a speed. We were instructed to increase speed by 20 KTS. I told her we were unable due to wake turbulence. She told us we had adequate spacing of 5 miles. I replied that we had been affected by their wake and we were not going to get any closer. I felt justified to do so for safety of flight. I believe that even though we had the required spacing; the wind conditions is what caused us to experience the wake turbulence beyond the standard mileage. We continued and had no more wake disruptions for the rest of the approach or landing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ200 experienced a wake turbulence event when vectored behind a DC10 on approach to JFK.

Narrative: Vectored on a base for the ILS 4R; we had a few 30 degree bank fluctuations due to wake turbulence. We asked whom we were following - we were behind a heavy DC10. We told them we wanted more spacing so they gave us a speed reduction of 180 KTS. We were also given a heading of 040 which put us parallel to the localizer course. I queried Approach about the heading. She said she gave us 010 to intercept; but we both had heard 040. We turned and intercepted on a 010 heading. The winds were blowing almost straight at us at 42 KTS at 2;000 FT. We were IMC; but I could see our spacing on TCAS. We had been cleared for the approach at this point and switched to Tower. The DC10 reported a speed of 150; so we slowed to our final ref speed of 145. We were about 5.5 miles behind the DC10. The Tower Controller then asked what our speed was and if we had been assigned a speed to maintain by the previous Controller. Once we had been cleared for the approach; we had not been told to maintain any particular speed to the marker; so I replied that we had not been given a speed. We were instructed to increase speed by 20 KTS. I told her we were unable due to wake turbulence. She told us we had adequate spacing of 5 miles. I replied that we had been affected by their wake and we were not going to get any closer. I felt justified to do so for safety of flight. I believe that even though we had the required spacing; the wind conditions is what caused us to experience the wake turbulence beyond the standard mileage. We continued and had no more wake disruptions for the rest of the approach or landing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.