Narrative:

Atl approach turned us onto a 15 mi final about 2 1/4 mi behind another MD88, told us to slow to 150 KIAS, and cleared us for the visual approach. We had the preceding aircraft in sight and thought that since we were slowed to 150 KIAS the spacing would improve. 2 mi before the OM, we were within 2 mi and closing. We expressed our concern to approach control about the spacing and he told us it was fine and handed us off to tower. At the OM we could see aircraft on the parallel runway, so landing on that runway was not an option. We considered asking for an s-turn but we could see the aircraft behind us was within 2 1/2 mi on the TCASII. We told the tower the spacing was too close and he told us to expect landing clearance on short final. We were 600 ft AGL when the aircraft in front of us touched down. As we came over the approach lights at 100 ft, the runway was clear, but we hit wake turbulence. The turbulence required full left aileron to keep the wings level. I immediately initiated a go around. Atl approach routinely gives us 2 1/2 mi or less spacing on final, assigns us a speed and hopes it works out. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that he had talked to his company, pilot group, and the atl tower. No one was willing to take on the problem. He was told that instead of spacing of 2 1/2 mi, atl was going to go to 2 mi separation. He was told a few missed approachs were acceptable.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE SEPARATION, MD80 INTO ATL ENCOUNTERED WAKE TURB AT 100 FT. EXECUTED A GAR.

Narrative: ATL APCH TURNED US ONTO A 15 MI FINAL ABOUT 2 1/4 MI BEHIND ANOTHER MD88, TOLD US TO SLOW TO 150 KIAS, AND CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH. WE HAD THE PRECEDING ACFT IN SIGHT AND THOUGHT THAT SINCE WE WERE SLOWED TO 150 KIAS THE SPACING WOULD IMPROVE. 2 MI BEFORE THE OM, WE WERE WITHIN 2 MI AND CLOSING. WE EXPRESSED OUR CONCERN TO APCH CTL ABOUT THE SPACING AND HE TOLD US IT WAS FINE AND HANDED US OFF TO TWR. AT THE OM WE COULD SEE ACFT ON THE PARALLEL RWY, SO LNDG ON THAT RWY WAS NOT AN OPTION. WE CONSIDERED ASKING FOR AN S-TURN BUT WE COULD SEE THE ACFT BEHIND US WAS WITHIN 2 1/2 MI ON THE TCASII. WE TOLD THE TWR THE SPACING WAS TOO CLOSE AND HE TOLD US TO EXPECT LNDG CLRNC ON SHORT FINAL. WE WERE 600 FT AGL WHEN THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US TOUCHED DOWN. AS WE CAME OVER THE APCH LIGHTS AT 100 FT, THE RWY WAS CLR, BUT WE HIT WAKE TURB. THE TURB REQUIRED FULL L AILERON TO KEEP THE WINGS LEVEL. I IMMEDIATELY INITIATED A GAR. ATL APCH ROUTINELY GIVES US 2 1/2 MI OR LESS SPACING ON FINAL, ASSIGNS US A SPD AND HOPES IT WORKS OUT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT HE HAD TALKED TO HIS COMPANY, PLT GROUP, AND THE ATL TWR. NO ONE WAS WILLING TO TAKE ON THE PROB. HE WAS TOLD THAT INSTEAD OF SPACING OF 2 1/2 MI, ATL WAS GOING TO GO TO 2 MI SEPARATION. HE WAS TOLD A FEW MISSED APCHS WERE ACCEPTABLE.

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.