Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft Y was from the northeast and Aircraft X was from the south. I forgot Aircraft Y did not have an approach clearance and went through final getting about 2.5 miles from Aircraft X from the south on 30 degree intercept to final. New rules say pilots can't use visual separation even when they will never lose sight because they will always be behind the aircraft ahead which is confusing not only to us; but questioned by the pilots. This is a whole different issue of a bad interpretation from non ATC staff in the Region. Because of this we can't use visual separation for safer situations and have to extend final even further. I was distracted by the 4 aircraft I was trying to stagger with new no visual separation rules and I forgot to clear Aircraft Y while I was getting everyone to 30 degree intercept headings without making other unnecessary vectors out of everyone's way when it wasn't needed. I turned Aircraft X maybe a mile too early; though was in the right spot for a normal operation; the extra mile would have helped. Overall the event was my fault; if I didn't forget to clear Aircraft Y; wouldn't have been an issue.I was literally distracted by only being able to use one form of separation on final when we have to stagger multiple aircraft which now is much more complex to do being not able to use visual separation. Which means the finals at Portland have been extended on average and been less efficient. The no visual separation on final rule is horribly misinterpreted. Simultaneous aircraft are wingtip to wingtip where when they turn for the 'belly' up situation; they can lose sight; not using visual separation in this case makes sense; or people telling the plane in front turning away to maintain visual separation with the plane behind them which doesn't make sense. Planes 1 to 3 or more miles in trail will literally never lose sight of the aircraft ahead even in their turn and is questioned by the pilots why the FAA thinks they will lose visual separation forcing them to extend final for no reason. Again; if aircraft are going to be side by side within a mile; this rule makes sense. Tell people they can't tell the first aircraft to maintain visual separation with the trailing aircraft for obvious reasons. Stop making up random rules that don't make sense. The FAA needs to have a team of actual controllers and pilots who know what they're doing and not a knee jerk reaction if a few people misapply the visual separation rule; they should be trained instead of the standard punish and confuse the entire NAS.Also for DC; aircraft go through final with 30 degree intercepts too; and when they turn to final after the 30 degree anyways even without going through they are still 'belly' up. Someone is really; really bad at writing rules.

Callback: The Reporter was contacted and explained in more detail the circumstances of the event.



Synopsis: P80 TRACON Final Controller forgot to clear an aircraft for an approach and had a loss of separation with parallel runway traffic based on based on a new interpretation of rules.