SMA ENCOUNTERED WAKE TURBULENCE FROM MLG AND WAS UNHAPPY ABOUT SEPARATION CRITERIA USED.

Narrative

ON AN IFR FLT FROM NAPLES; FL; TO TPA IN AN SMA IN HARD INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS; TPA APCH GUIDED SMA TO AN ALT OF 2600' TO INTERCEPT THE G/S FOR ILS RWY 36L. I ALSO HEARD CTLR INSTRUCT ANOTHER CRAFT TO INTERCEPT G/S AT 3600'; AN ACR MLG I BELIEVE. UPON INTERCEPTION AT THE IAF SEVERE WAKE TURB WAS ENCOUNTERED. ONLY THE 100% ATTENTIVENESS OF THE PLT AND SIZE OF THE ACFT AVOIDED DISASTER. THE CTLR WAS NOT AWARE OR IGNORANT OF THE SITUATION AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS IF THIS WAS A LIGHTER ACFT AND AN INEXPERIENCED PLT; A CRASH WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO AVOID. UPON BEING CONTACTED BY THE TWR I WAS NOTIFIED TO FOLLOW AN MLG AND REPLIED; 'I KNOW; I HAVE BEEN IN ITS WAKE.' I FEEL LIKE RPTING THIS TO THE FAA WOULD CAUSE ME PROBS AS A PVT PLT; SO I WON'T DO IT. AS A MEMBER OF THE GA COMMUNITY I FEEL THEY (FAA) WOULD FIGURE IT (BETTER IF WE WERE NOT THERE). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: CALLBACK INDICATES THAT THE MLG WAS VECTORED OVER THE TOP OF THE SMA BY 1000' AND WAS AT LEAST 4 MI IN FRONT OF SMA ON THE APCH. THIS IS LEGAL ATC PROC HANDBOOK SEP. APPEARS THE WAKE TURB MAY HAVE SETTLED ON THAT THE SMA FLEW INTO IT AS HE INTERCEPTED THE G/S. MLG WAS CLRING THE RWY WHEN THE SMA BROKE OUT AND SMA ASKED FOR AND WAS GIVEN A SIDESTEP TO RWY 36R. RPTR FEELS THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS LEGAL SEP; IT IS NOT ENOUGH.