Narrative:

First officer (first officer) attempted to start APU just prior to gate arrival as new company guidance suggests. APU failed to start. I reduced taxi speed further as QRH was expeditiously completed and another start attempted. APU failed to start a second time. Taxied slowly to gate while making hand signals for ground power. Continued to run engine number 1 until ground power was connected. Later in evening while having dinner with a friend who works the ramp; he mentioned how another ramp co-worker nearly walked into an engine running at the gate. He described how he ran over to and under the running engine and continually yelled at co-worker in a highly agitated manner until co-worker realized [the issue]; and slowly backed away from the engine. This was my flight.the suggested procedure of starting the APU just prior to gate arrival does not allow for an adequate amount of time to notify station operations and ramp personnel if the APU unexpectedly fails to start. For the purposes of saving fuel and APU run time; an unexpected hazard is now present in the ramp environment that could have tragic consequences; and in our case nearly occurred. I suspect ramp personnel are trained to treat every engine as if it is running; until positively confirmed otherwise. With the new; delayed APU start procedures; there is going to be an increase in aircraft unexpectedly arriving at the gate with the number one engine running for an extended amount of time due to the circumstances described above.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 Captain reported a ramp employee walked too close to their running engine during taxi-in. The Captain feels a new company policy of delaying APU start until just prior to gate was a factor.

Narrative: First Officer (FO) attempted to start APU just prior to gate arrival as new company guidance suggests. APU failed to start. I reduced taxi speed further as QRH was expeditiously completed and another start attempted. APU failed to start a second time. Taxied slowly to gate while making hand signals for ground power. Continued to run engine number 1 until ground power was connected. Later in evening while having dinner with a friend who works the ramp; he mentioned how another ramp co-worker nearly walked into an engine running at the gate. He described how he ran over to and under the running engine and continually yelled at co-worker in a highly agitated manner until co-worker realized [the issue]; and slowly backed away from the engine. This was my flight.The suggested procedure of starting the APU just prior to gate arrival does not allow for an adequate amount of time to notify station operations and ramp personnel if the APU unexpectedly fails to start. For the purposes of saving fuel and APU run time; an unexpected hazard is now present in the ramp environment that could have tragic consequences; and in our case nearly occurred. I suspect ramp personnel are trained to treat every engine as if it is running; until positively confirmed otherwise. With the new; delayed APU start procedures; there is going to be an increase in aircraft unexpectedly arriving at the gate with the number one engine running for an extended amount of time due to the circumstances described above.

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.