Narrative:

After landing runway 9L at fll, tower told us to taxi to our gate. As we headed down alley toward our gate, noticed air carrier B737 being pushed at bottom of alley approaching our gate. We slowed, determined that they were stopped, or no factor and taxied into our gate. Later learned that air carrier felt we were too close to them. Ramp is uncontrolled. Tower cleared us to gate. If traffic was a possible conflict we thought we would have heard advisory from tower/ground. Perhaps this area needs a ramp control, or ground to give advisories when other aircraft movement is eminent. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the aircraft was an MD80. The reporter had not been to this airport in perhaps 2 yrs. The reporter could not recall whether a pushback call was required. The reporter suggested that pushback aircraft should have wing walkers. An airport operations person had come into dispatch about 20 mins after the reporter had parked to say that the complaint had occurred from the captain of the aircraft pushing back. However, the pushback aircraft air carrier was new to the airport as if to say the captain was really not accustomed to the way we do things around here.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE RPTR WAS TAXIING INTO AN ALLEY AND INTO THE GATE WHILE ANOTHER ACFT WAS PUSHING BACK OUT OF THE ALLEY AND AWAY FROM ANOTHER GATE. THE PUSHBACK CAPT THOUGHT THE RPTR TAXIED TOO CLOSE.

Narrative: AFTER LNDG RWY 9L AT FLL, TWR TOLD US TO TAXI TO OUR GATE. AS WE HEADED DOWN ALLEY TOWARD OUR GATE, NOTICED ACR B737 BEING PUSHED AT BOTTOM OF ALLEY APCHING OUR GATE. WE SLOWED, DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE STOPPED, OR NO FACTOR AND TAXIED INTO OUR GATE. LATER LEARNED THAT ACR FELT WE WERE TOO CLOSE TO THEM. RAMP IS UNCTLED. TWR CLRED US TO GATE. IF TFC WAS A POSSIBLE CONFLICT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE HEARD ADVISORY FROM TWR/GND. PERHAPS THIS AREA NEEDS A RAMP CTL, OR GND TO GIVE ADVISORIES WHEN OTHER ACFT MOVEMENT IS EMINENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE ACFT WAS AN MD80. THE RPTR HAD NOT BEEN TO THIS ARPT IN PERHAPS 2 YRS. THE RPTR COULD NOT RECALL WHETHER A PUSHBACK CALL WAS REQUIRED. THE RPTR SUGGESTED THAT PUSHBACK ACFT SHOULD HAVE WING WALKERS. AN ARPT OPS PERSON HAD COME INTO DISPATCH ABOUT 20 MINS AFTER THE RPTR HAD PARKED TO SAY THAT THE COMPLAINT HAD OCCURRED FROM THE CAPT OF THE ACFT PUSHING BACK. HOWEVER, THE PUSHBACK ACFT ACR WAS NEW TO THE ARPT AS IF TO SAY THE CAPT WAS REALLY NOT ACCUSTOMED TO THE WAY WE DO THINGS AROUND HERE.

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.