Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Confusion; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Procedure; Human Factors
I was told this was a wake remnant error and then while I was in with the supervisor watching and listening to the error he said it was also an error because I did not ensure the CRJ was on a 270 track; not heading; which I gave. I was advised he was on a 260 something track so I didn't have my 30 degrees. So here is the situation; I had B767 heavy descending on the north downwind going to 30L for a visual approach. CRJ was coming in from the northeast going to 30R for a visual approach. I got the heavy below the CRJ and crossed him in front of the CRJ's path probably 4 or 5 miles in front of him and got him across the localizers where they reported the airport in sight just as they were crossing the right localizer on a base heading. I told him to turn towards the airport and cleared for the visual to 30L. As soon as I did that I came back to the CRJ and turned him to a 270 heading and descended him to 40 and then asked him to advise the airport in sight. The CRJ advised the airport in sight and I cleared him for the visual to 30R and called traffic for him about the heavy that was now at his ten o'clock and 4 miles. He advised him in sight but I felt that I had the appropriate separation or less than a 30 degree intercept on both aircraft and didn't think wake turbulence was a factor so I did not tell him to maintain visual separation. I don't think that wake remnant separation should be something we should be having to worry about. It is confusing and I don't think that with standard wake turbulence that we are putting aircraft in dangerous positions.
M98 Controller was advised of a 'Wake Remnant' separation error; the reporter noting that this separation criteria should not be a controller evaluation criteria.