Narrative:

We have been having personnel safety issues regarding jet blast from inbound flights getting parked at the terminal gates. The wing walker of an inbound flight leaves his or her post after the aircraft is inside the gate envelope; rendering the wing walker duty void. After an inbound flight is inside the gate envelope the wing walker follows the aircraft for other duties; leaving the traffic zone [exhaust] area behind the aircraft unattended. Usually; with a lengthy void of unattended wing walker duty; the traffic unaware; starts to cross behind the running engine (other waiting traffic has already turned around to find other alternative route). This has caused repeated jet blast conditions; it is a matter of time when a serious injury will occur. Other aircraft maintenance technician (amts) or aircraft electronics technician (aets) have voiced concerns to the matter with no avail. The main concern of this report is to get wing walkers to stay at their post till engines shut down.I want to bring up a safety issue addressing ramp tower; idle engine run safety on the terminal gates. I have filed a report and have discussed the issue with some management personnel from my department (aircraft maintenance) and some ramp safety personnel over the last few months; but I thought it might be a good idea to include ATC; local air carrier ramp tower management also; concerning this issue. [Our] air carrier's new fuel savings policy: (flight crews on incoming flights for NG737; A319/320 aircraft are required to pull onto gate [with] APU off and continue to run #1 engine until ground power is connected and verified online before shutting down # 1 engine.) this practice has been in force for a few months now and there are many safety concerns and problems that have arisen due to the # 1 engines extended run times on the gate. What is supposed to take place in about 30-seconds (hook up grd power/ shut down # 1) has been observed by many of us to take up to two minutes or more as problems arise hooking up ground power. During this extended engine run time; I and others have reported to management on more than one occasion; safety hazards related to the extended engine run time. 50% of the time there is no safety wing walkers with safety wands giving the warning signal of a running engine to ground personnel. Several incidents of ground personnel driving behind near; or on foot; near the running engine. On windy days I have personally seen paper FOD blown near the inlet of the running engine and getting ingested causing me to later inspect the inlet and remove debris in # 1 engine. Myself and others I have talked to (including flight crews) being under the duress of concern that it's just a matter of time before someone or something large gets ingested into # 1 engine. Little if any significant fuel savings to justify the risks involved of the extended # 1 engine run time. As far as I know; there is still no written safety policy in effect for ground personnel to support the new fuel savings policy. I had a ramp person tell me that this new policy does not require in writing; [that] wing walkers stay behind the aircraft's left side with safety wands to warn other ground personnel of the running engine? So; some ramp personnel refuse to do it. So; after they wing walk and the brakes are set; they just drop their wands and walk away with the # 1 engine still running. Pounds per hour (pph) the APU burns less fuel than a running engine? When maintenance performs an engine run on the gate for maintenance reasons; we have to get permission from ramp tower on radios and we are required to have safety ground personnel with wands in place to warn ground personnel of the running engine. The jet ways are being brought up to the aircraft while the engine is still running on many occasions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician reports that ramp personnel performing wing walker duties do not stay with inbound aircraft at the arrival gate until ground power has been established. A new fuel savings policy by their company; requires flight crews to continue running the #1 Engine on B737NGs and A320 aircraft instead of using the APUs; raising safety concerns for personnel and equipment behind the aircraft.

Narrative: We have been having personnel safety issues regarding jet blast from inbound flights getting parked at the terminal gates. The Wing Walker of an inbound flight leaves his or her post after the aircraft is inside the gate envelope; rendering the Wing Walker duty void. After an inbound flight is inside the gate envelope the Wing Walker follows the aircraft for other duties; leaving the traffic zone [exhaust] area behind the aircraft unattended. Usually; with a lengthy void of unattended Wing Walker duty; the traffic unaware; starts to cross behind the running engine (other waiting traffic has already turned around to find other alternative route). This has caused repeated jet blast conditions; it is a matter of time when a serious injury will occur. Other Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMTs) or Aircraft Electronics Technician (AETs) have voiced concerns to the matter with no avail. The main concern of this report is to get Wing Walkers to stay at their post till engines shut down.I want to bring up a safety issue addressing Ramp Tower; Idle Engine Run Safety on the Terminal Gates. I have filed a report and have discussed the issue with some management personnel from my department (Aircraft Maintenance) and some Ramp safety personnel over the last few months; but I thought it might be a good idea to include ATC; Local Air Carrier Ramp Tower Management also; concerning this issue. [Our] Air Carrier's new Fuel Savings Policy: (Flight crews on incoming flights for NG737; A319/320 aircraft are required to pull onto gate [with] APU OFF and continue to Run #1 Engine until Ground Power is connected and verified online before shutting down # 1 Engine.) This practice has been in force for a few months now and there are many safety concerns and problems that have arisen due to the # 1 engines extended Run times on the Gate. What is supposed to take place in about 30-seconds (Hook up GRD PWR/ Shut down # 1) has been observed by many of us to take up to two minutes or more as problems arise hooking up Ground Power. During this extended Engine Run Time; I and others have reported to Management on more than one occasion; Safety Hazards related to the extended engine run time. 50% of the time there is no safety Wing walkers with safety wands giving the warning signal of a running engine to Ground personnel. Several incidents of Ground personnel driving behind near; or on foot; near the running engine. On windy days I have personally seen paper FOD blown near the inlet of the running engine and getting ingested causing me to later inspect the inlet and remove debris in # 1 Engine. Myself and others I have talked to (including Flight crews) being under the duress of concern that it's just a matter of time before someone or something large gets ingested into # 1 Engine. Little if any significant fuel savings to justify the risks involved of the extended # 1 Engine run time. As far as I know; there is still no written Safety Policy in effect for Ground personnel to support the new Fuel Savings Policy. I had a Ramp person tell me that this new policy does not require in writing; [that] Wing Walkers stay behind the aircraft's Left side with safety wands to warn other Ground personnel of the Running Engine? So; some Ramp personnel refuse to do it. So; after they wing walk and the brakes are set; they just drop their wands and walk away with the # 1 Engine still Running. Pounds per Hour (PPH) the APU burns less fuel than a running engine? When Maintenance performs an engine run on the gate for maintenance reasons; we have to get permission from Ramp Tower on radios and we are required to have safety Ground personnel with wands in place to warn Ground personnel of the running engine. The Jet ways are being brought up to the aircraft while the engine is still running on many occasions.

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.