Narrative:

Having flown in and out of sfo over the past 23 years (17 years as captain) of my career; I'd like to add my 2 cents worth about the recently added sfo don't-start-the-APU arrival procedure which may go system wide.after we landed in sfo yesterday we waited five (5) minutes for the ramp crew to assemble at an open gate. They seemed confused about how to receive the aircraft and were definitely not ready to immediately provide power and air upon arrival.the ramp is always too hot or too cold; it's very busy and it's always a noisy place. Rampers work incredibly hard and often have to work quickly. It is easy to get distracted on the ramp. It is very fatiguing work. Sometime they're so tired that they fall asleep in the cargo hold. (See attached). It is not a particularly safe job. Having said that; rampers are not professionals who are regulated and certified by the FAA and [the] airlines. It is the flight crew and especially the captain; who have overall authority and bear ultimate responsibility concerning the operation of their aircraft. The flight crew will bear responsibility for any damage; injury or death especially if they knew a procedure to be risky or unsafe and then failed to exercise due care. It is only a matter of time before we suck one of our below-the-wing co-workers into the running #1 engine. I start my APU after landing and then often (but not always) shut down the #2 engine for a single engine taxi into the gate. Upon arrival at the gate; I set the parking brake and shut down the #1 engine. Once ground power and ground air have been connected; confirmed and holding power and providing cooling / warming air to the airplane (approx. 3 minutes) then and only then; do I shut down the APU. This minimizes fuel burn without sacrificing below-the-wing employee safety; provides passenger comfort and reduces noise upon arrival and jetway docking. Nine times out of ten it also results in a quicker docking and deplaning. I will not change how I operate my aircraft and will continue to exercise my authority at the highest levels of safety and care. The two attached pilot bulletins which describe this procedure are written in such a way that it appears the company is mandating this procedure and making it an SOP. Therefore; I am violating an SOP every time I land and don't follow them. However; I believe that this procedure violates the fars by operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner. I'm not dictating how other captains operate their aircraft but making the APU-off arrival procedure an SOP is both dangerous and incompetent. I won't change a safe; comfortable; expeditious and reasonably efficient procedure just because some manager at [my airline] 'thinks' it's safe and we haven't killed or maimed anybody yet. The lack of an accident is not indicative of a safe procedure. Leaving the #1 engine running upon arrival at the gate is not safe and the test should have been discontinued. Furthermore; if this procedure is to be continued it should be clear that it is optional and not SOP.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 Captain expressed concern about ramp safety following his air carrier's change in a procedure that would keep an engine running at the gate.

Narrative: Having flown in and out of SFO over the past 23 years (17 years as Captain) of my career; I'd like to add my 2 cents worth about the recently added SFO Don't-Start-the-APU arrival procedure which may go system wide.After we landed in SFO yesterday we waited five (5) minutes for the ramp crew to assemble at an open gate. They seemed confused about how to receive the aircraft and were definitely not ready to immediately provide power and air upon arrival.The ramp is always too hot or too cold; it's very busy and it's always a noisy place. Rampers work incredibly hard and often have to work quickly. It is easy to get distracted on the ramp. It is very fatiguing work. Sometime they're so tired that they fall asleep in the cargo hold. (see attached). It is not a particularly safe job. Having said that; Rampers are not professionals who are regulated and certified by the FAA and [the] airlines. It is the Flight Crew and especially the Captain; who have overall authority and bear ultimate responsibility concerning the operation of their aircraft. The Flight Crew will bear responsibility for any damage; injury or death especially if they knew a procedure to be risky or unsafe and then failed to exercise due care. It is only a matter of time before we suck one of our below-the-wing co-workers into the running #1 engine. I start my APU after landing and then often (but not always) shut down the #2 engine for a single engine taxi into the gate. Upon arrival at the gate; I set the parking brake and shut down the #1 engine. Once ground power and ground air have been connected; confirmed and holding power and providing cooling / warming air to the airplane (approx. 3 minutes) then and only then; do I shut down the APU. This minimizes fuel burn without sacrificing below-the-wing employee safety; provides passenger comfort and reduces noise upon arrival and jetway docking. Nine times out of ten it also results in a quicker docking and deplaning. I will not change how I operate my aircraft and will continue to exercise my authority at the highest levels of safety and care. The two attached Pilot Bulletins which describe this procedure are written in such a way that it appears the company is mandating this procedure and making it an SOP. Therefore; I am violating an SOP every time I land and don't follow them. However; I believe that this procedure violates the FARs by operating an aircraft in a careless and reckless manner. I'm not dictating how other Captains operate their aircraft but making the APU-Off Arrival Procedure an SOP is both dangerous and incompetent. I won't change a safe; comfortable; expeditious and reasonably efficient procedure just because some manager at [my airline] 'thinks' it's safe and we haven't killed or maimed anybody yet. The lack of an accident is not indicative of a safe procedure. Leaving the #1 engine running upon arrival at the gate is not safe and the test should have been discontinued. Furthermore; if this procedure is to be continued it should be clear that it is optional and not SOP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.