Narrative:

This apparent threat of violation seems simply a retaliation/harassment/witch hunt for trying to operate a flight in the safest possible manner by use of different runway. Although the port authority apparently threatened a violation for an alleged engine run up, I believe that a witch hunt could take place and this report should cover any and all accusations, allegations or violations that may pertain to this flight. Although, I believe all operations to have been performed in compliance to far's. In consideration of heavy weight of aircraft and noise sensitive areas on the departure of runway 13, a request was made to the tower, and immediately granted, to use runway 4, which was more suitable. This runway change caused some delay at or near departure end of runway 4 on taxiway a. Fuel conservation measures were used. During engine start, using bleed air from operating engines, lga tower advised the port authority wanted us to reduce to idle thrust. There were no other aircraft behind our aircraft, but this should not have been a consideration since this start was done in complete compliance to far's, as were all operations of this aircraft. Port authority car appeared abeam aircraft on right side off cockpit, possibly in front of wing, or on taxiway in a position that may have interfered with the operation of the aircraft. Nonetheless, a distraction to crew and possibly passengers. Tower was advised to have this car removed from the vicinity of aircraft. This car disappeared and reappeared, as I recall, going in a different direction, most likely entering taxiway in front of aircraft wing or close to cockpit area to make this turn. Shortly before taxi for takeoff, I had no visual contact with this car, but first officer indicated he was still out there and appeared to be somewhat in front of the right wing. After advising tower 3 times to get this car away from aircraft, he left our sight and apparently positioned the car behind us on or near taxiway a. This position was observed when we entered runway 4 for takeoff. After departure, I asked tower why this car was around the aircraft and interfering with our flight and the tower replied, essentially, the port authority doesn't inform us of their operations. I requested the dispatcher contact tower to see what the problem was and he was apparently advised there was no problem. Within the next few hours, the port authority apparently called the company and advised they were filing a violation for an engine run up. The port authority has been noted for apparent harassment or interference of flight operations at lga airport. They should receive a mandate from federal authorities to keep vehicles well clear of aircraft unless, of course, there is an accident or a request for assistance. Further, make no attempt to get involved in operational procedures of aircraft. If in fact the lga tower is not advised of their operations, how is proper separation provided? Aircraft should know when vehicles are in proximity of aircraft for any reason to preclude a hindrance to safety/security. These port authority personnel may possibly be an infringement to security in that they could possibly tamper with an aircraft. These port authority vehicles/personnel need to be kept away from aircraft under normal operations. A runway change is not an abnormal operation. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. The port authority thought that the reporter was making an unauthorized runup when in fact he was making a cross bleed start per his company instructions. The reporter states that the port authority often has vehicles on the ramp inspecting aircraft, and that the vehicles sometimes block aircraft movement. These vehicles are not communicating with the tower on aircraft radios. This pilot's company and union are both aware of this situation and have tried to take action to no avail.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR LGT CAPT GOT INTO A TEST OF PWR WITH THE PORT AUTHORITY OVER A CROSS BLEED START AND THE POSITIONING OF A PORT AUTHORITY VEHICLE.

Narrative: THIS APPARENT THREAT OF VIOLATION SEEMS SIMPLY A RETALIATION/HARASSMENT/WITCH HUNT FOR TRYING TO OPERATE A FLT IN THE SAFEST POSSIBLE MANNER BY USE OF DIFFERENT RWY. ALTHOUGH THE PORT AUTHORITY APPARENTLY THREATENED A VIOLATION FOR AN ALLEGED ENG RUN UP, I BELIEVE THAT A WITCH HUNT COULD TAKE PLACE AND THIS RPT SHOULD COVER ANY AND ALL ACCUSATIONS, ALLEGATIONS OR VIOLATIONS THAT MAY PERTAIN TO THIS FLT. ALTHOUGH, I BELIEVE ALL OPS TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE TO FAR'S. IN CONSIDERATION OF HVY WT OF ACFT AND NOISE SENSITIVE AREAS ON THE DEP OF RWY 13, A REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE TWR, AND IMMEDIATELY GRANTED, TO USE RWY 4, WHICH WAS MORE SUITABLE. THIS RWY CHANGE CAUSED SOME DELAY AT OR NEAR DEP END OF RWY 4 ON TAXIWAY A. FUEL CONSERVATION MEASURES WERE USED. DURING ENG START, USING BLEED AIR FROM OPERATING ENGS, LGA TWR ADVISED THE PORT AUTHORITY WANTED US TO REDUCE TO IDLE THRUST. THERE WERE NO OTHER ACFT BEHIND OUR ACFT, BUT THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A CONSIDERATION SINCE THIS START WAS DONE IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE TO FAR'S, AS WERE ALL OPS OF THIS ACFT. PORT AUTHORITY CAR APPEARED ABEAM ACFT ON R SIDE OFF COCKPIT, POSSIBLY IN FRONT OF WING, OR ON TAXIWAY IN A POS THAT MAY HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE OP OF THE ACFT. NONETHELESS, A DISTR TO CREW AND POSSIBLY PAXS. TWR WAS ADVISED TO HAVE THIS CAR REMOVED FROM THE VICINITY OF ACFT. THIS CAR DISAPPEARED AND REAPPEARED, AS I RECALL, GOING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, MOST LIKELY ENTERING TAXIWAY IN FRONT OF ACFT WING OR CLOSE TO COCKPIT AREA TO MAKE THIS TURN. SHORTLY BEFORE TAXI FOR TKOF, I HAD NO VISUAL CONTACT WITH THIS CAR, BUT FO INDICATED HE WAS STILL OUT THERE AND APPEARED TO BE SOMEWHAT IN FRONT OF THE R WING. AFTER ADVISING TWR 3 TIMES TO GET THIS CAR AWAY FROM ACFT, HE LEFT OUR SIGHT AND APPARENTLY POSITIONED THE CAR BEHIND US ON OR NEAR TAXIWAY A. THIS POS WAS OBSERVED WHEN WE ENTERED RWY 4 FOR TKOF. AFTER DEP, I ASKED TWR WHY THIS CAR WAS AROUND THE ACFT AND INTERFERING WITH OUR FLT AND THE TWR REPLIED, ESSENTIALLY, THE PORT AUTHORITY DOESN'T INFORM US OF THEIR OPS. I REQUESTED THE DISPATCHER CONTACT TWR TO SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS AND HE WAS APPARENTLY ADVISED THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. WITHIN THE NEXT FEW HRS, THE PORT AUTHORITY APPARENTLY CALLED THE COMPANY AND ADVISED THEY WERE FILING A VIOLATION FOR AN ENG RUN UP. THE PORT AUTHORITY HAS BEEN NOTED FOR APPARENT HARASSMENT OR INTERFERENCE OF FLT OPS AT LGA ARPT. THEY SHOULD RECEIVE A MANDATE FROM FEDERAL AUTHORITIES TO KEEP VEHICLES WELL CLR OF ACFT UNLESS, OF COURSE, THERE IS AN ACCIDENT OR A REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE. FURTHER, MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO GET INVOLVED IN OPERATIONAL PROCS OF ACFT. IF IN FACT THE LGA TWR IS NOT ADVISED OF THEIR OPS, HOW IS PROPER SEPARATION PROVIDED? ACFT SHOULD KNOW WHEN VEHICLES ARE IN PROX OF ACFT FOR ANY REASON TO PRECLUDE A HINDRANCE TO SAFETY/SECURITY. THESE PORT AUTHORITY PERSONNEL MAY POSSIBLY BE AN INFRINGEMENT TO SECURITY IN THAT THEY COULD POSSIBLY TAMPER WITH AN ACFT. THESE PORT AUTHORITY VEHICLES/PERSONNEL NEED TO BE KEPT AWAY FROM ACFT UNDER NORMAL OPS. A RWY CHANGE IS NOT AN ABNORMAL OP. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. THE PORT AUTHORITY THOUGHT THAT THE RPTR WAS MAKING AN UNAUTHORIZED RUNUP WHEN IN FACT HE WAS MAKING A CROSS BLEED START PER HIS COMPANY INSTRUCTIONS. THE RPTR STATES THAT THE PORT AUTHORITY OFTEN HAS VEHICLES ON THE RAMP INSPECTING ACFT, AND THAT THE VEHICLES SOMETIMES BLOCK ACFT MOVEMENT. THESE VEHICLES ARE NOT COMMUNICATING WITH THE TWR ON ACFT RADIOS. THIS PLT'S COMPANY AND UNION ARE BOTH AWARE OF THIS SITUATION AND HAVE TRIED TO TAKE ACTION TO NO AVAIL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.