Narrative:

Since the FAA has implemented 'reduced longitudinal separation,' not only inside the FAF to landing but out to 10 NM, spacing between aircraft on final approach has been at a minimally acceptable level since 1989. ATC is always pushing us to accept spacing of 2.5 NM to touchdown. Numerous times, the aircraft ahead had not started to exit the runway as we neared the approach lights system. This causes much anxiety and consternation as we prepare to go around instead of landing. Then, at the very last instant, the aircraft ahead clears the runway (sometimes not completely!) and we recommit to land. Flying on 'the edge' like this, routinely, is unacceptable! In addition, wake turbulence, even from large transport and medium large transport aircraft, becomes more significant and often destabilizes the approach, flare and touchdown. Big wing and nose movements near touchdown scares the hell out of the passenger! On a recent medium large transport flight I flew, we were jammed against an large transport ahead, with 2.5 NM separation, from about 8 NM out to landing. We were in and out of his wake turbulence most of the way to the runway. Then, he did not clear the runway until the last second before we would have had to go around. He did clear the runway, so we did land, but not without some wild gyrations in the flare due to his wake turbulence. Consequently, I will no longer accept 2.5 NM spacing to touchdown. In addition, although an large transport is not classified as a 'heavy' aircraft, it produces such strong (much stronger than large transport, medium large transport, etc) wake turbulence, that I will not accept anything less than 3 NM anywhere on approach when following an large transport. I will even try to obtain at least 3.5 NM separation with an large transport ahead.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR COMPLAINS OF REDUCED LONGITUDINAL SEPARATION ON FINAL APCH BEING PUSHED BY ATC.

Narrative: SINCE THE FAA HAS IMPLEMENTED 'REDUCED LONGITUDINAL SEPARATION,' NOT ONLY INSIDE THE FAF TO LNDG BUT OUT TO 10 NM, SPACING BTWN ACFT ON FINAL APCH HAS BEEN AT A MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE LEVEL SINCE 1989. ATC IS ALWAYS PUSHING US TO ACCEPT SPACING OF 2.5 NM TO TOUCHDOWN. NUMEROUS TIMES, THE ACFT AHEAD HAD NOT STARTED TO EXIT THE RWY AS WE NEARED THE APCH LIGHTS SYS. THIS CAUSES MUCH ANXIETY AND CONSTERNATION AS WE PREPARE TO GAR INSTEAD OF LNDG. THEN, AT THE VERY LAST INSTANT, THE ACFT AHEAD CLRS THE RWY (SOMETIMES NOT COMPLETELY!) AND WE RECOMMIT TO LAND. FLYING ON 'THE EDGE' LIKE THIS, ROUTINELY, IS UNACCEPTABLE! IN ADDITION, WAKE TURB, EVEN FROM LGT AND MLG ACFT, BECOMES MORE SIGNIFICANT AND OFTEN DESTABILIZES THE APCH, FLARE AND TOUCHDOWN. BIG WING AND NOSE MOVEMENTS NEAR TOUCHDOWN SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THE PAX! ON A RECENT MLG FLT I FLEW, WE WERE JAMMED AGAINST AN LGT AHEAD, WITH 2.5 NM SEPARATION, FROM ABOUT 8 NM OUT TO LNDG. WE WERE IN AND OUT OF HIS WAKE TURB MOST OF THE WAY TO THE RWY. THEN, HE DID NOT CLR THE RWY UNTIL THE LAST SECOND BEFORE WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO GAR. HE DID CLR THE RWY, SO WE DID LAND, BUT NOT WITHOUT SOME WILD GYRATIONS IN THE FLARE DUE TO HIS WAKE TURB. CONSEQUENTLY, I WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT 2.5 NM SPACING TO TOUCHDOWN. IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH AN LGT IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS A 'HVY' ACFT, IT PRODUCES SUCH STRONG (MUCH STRONGER THAN LGT, MLG, ETC) WAKE TURB, THAT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANYTHING LESS THAN 3 NM ANYWHERE ON APCH WHEN FOLLOWING AN LGT. I WILL EVEN TRY TO OBTAIN AT LEAST 3.5 NM SEPARATION WITH AN LGT AHEAD.

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