Narrative:

Approximately 10 mins after block in at fll, operations got a call from a commuter complaining about buffeting of one of their beech 1900 airplanes parked on the ramp near their gate. The caller said the buffeting was caused by an MD83 airplane departing their gate. About 10 mins later, an airport worker arrived in operations in response to another commuter call to him. His report said the aircraft buffeting was caused by the MD83 aircraft arriving at gate. I was the captain of the arriving flight. I taxied to the gate on the yellow line with both engines running. After completing the turn into the gate and aligning with the yellow parking line, I commanded the first officer to shut down the right engine. I completed the parking maneuver at idle thrust by coasting to the stop point. Subsequently, the commuter mechanic inspected their airplane. He reported to the airport worker that there was no damage to their aircraft. It departed on a revenue flight about 10 mins later. On taxi out, I noted several be-1900 aircraft parked nose-to-nose, on a north/south axis at gates, with the tail of the southernmost aircraft very close to the red warning line near the yellow taxi line between concourses. Facing any airplane's tail, instead of its nose, toward known airflow disturbances from passing jet aircraft may not be the most prudent procedure. Perhaps these aircraft are not conforming to whatever policy permits small aircraft to be parked in such close proximity to a maneuver area for larger aircraft, especially when a 90 degree turn is required to park at a nearby gate. The turn requires pointing the tail of the larger aircraft directly at the parking area of the smaller airplanes. I believe I exercised prudent judgement and extraordinary care while taxiing and parking flight on nov-sun-00. No damage occurred and no one was injured. I called my chief pilot before leaving fll operations. I told him what occurred. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the captain cited a parking problem as the main cause of this incident. Initially, the be-1900 aircraft were no more than two in number, with the numbers increased to four to six aircraft in that gate area. The be-1900 aircraft are parked so that there is less than 30 ft of space between the tail of the be-1900 and the wing of the MD83 prior to it turning into the gate. He said that the only other way to avoid recurring problems such as this one was to have the aircraft towed into the gate. This would impose financial restraints upon his carrier. Captain is concerned that passenger boarding or deplaning may also be affected by jet blast as could any maintenance personnel on the ramp near those closely parked aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PARKING SPACE ALLOCATION PROB FOR BE-1900'S PARKED AT GATE WITH JET BLAST ENCOUNTER FROM A PARKING MD83 AT NEARBY GATE AT FLL.

Narrative: APPROX 10 MINS AFTER BLOCK IN AT FLL, OPS GOT A CALL FROM A COMMUTER COMPLAINING ABOUT BUFFETING OF ONE OF THEIR BEECH 1900 AIRPLANES PARKED ON THE RAMP NEAR THEIR GATE. THE CALLER SAID THE BUFFETING WAS CAUSED BY AN MD83 AIRPLANE DEPARTING THEIR GATE. ABOUT 10 MINS LATER, AN ARPT WORKER ARRIVED IN OPS IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER COMMUTER CALL TO HIM. HIS RPT SAID THE ACFT BUFFETING WAS CAUSED BY THE MD83 ACFT ARRIVING AT GATE. I WAS THE CAPT OF THE ARRIVING FLT. I TAXIED TO THE GATE ON THE YELLOW LINE WITH BOTH ENGS RUNNING. AFTER COMPLETING THE TURN INTO THE GATE AND ALIGNING WITH THE YELLOW PARKING LINE, I COMMANDED THE FO TO SHUT DOWN THE R ENG. I COMPLETED THE PARKING MANEUVER AT IDLE THRUST BY COASTING TO THE STOP POINT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMUTER MECH INSPECTED THEIR AIRPLANE. HE RPTED TO THE ARPT WORKER THAT THERE WAS NO DAMAGE TO THEIR ACFT. IT DEPARTED ON A REVENUE FLT ABOUT 10 MINS LATER. ON TAXI OUT, I NOTED SEVERAL BE-1900 ACFT PARKED NOSE-TO-NOSE, ON A N/S AXIS AT GATES, WITH THE TAIL OF THE SOUTHERNMOST ACFT VERY CLOSE TO THE RED WARNING LINE NEAR THE YELLOW TAXI LINE BTWN CONCOURSES. FACING ANY AIRPLANE'S TAIL, INSTEAD OF ITS NOSE, TOWARD KNOWN AIRFLOW DISTURBANCES FROM PASSING JET ACFT MAY NOT BE THE MOST PRUDENT PROC. PERHAPS THESE ACFT ARE NOT CONFORMING TO WHATEVER POLICY PERMITS SMALL ACFT TO BE PARKED IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A MANEUVER AREA FOR LARGER ACFT, ESPECIALLY WHEN A 90 DEG TURN IS REQUIRED TO PARK AT A NEARBY GATE. THE TURN REQUIRES POINTING THE TAIL OF THE LARGER ACFT DIRECTLY AT THE PARKING AREA OF THE SMALLER AIRPLANES. I BELIEVE I EXERCISED PRUDENT JUDGEMENT AND EXTRAORDINARY CARE WHILE TAXIING AND PARKING FLT ON NOV-SUN-00. NO DAMAGE OCCURRED AND NO ONE WAS INJURED. I CALLED MY CHIEF PLT BEFORE LEAVING FLL OPS. I TOLD HIM WHAT OCCURRED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CAPT CITED A PARKING PROB AS THE MAIN CAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT. INITIALLY, THE BE-1900 ACFT WERE NO MORE THAN TWO IN NUMBER, WITH THE NUMBERS INCREASED TO FOUR TO SIX ACFT IN THAT GATE AREA. THE BE-1900 ACFT ARE PARKED SO THAT THERE IS LESS THAN 30 FT OF SPACE BTWN THE TAIL OF THE BE-1900 AND THE WING OF THE MD83 PRIOR TO IT TURNING INTO THE GATE. HE SAID THAT THE ONLY OTHER WAY TO AVOID RECURRING PROBS SUCH AS THIS ONE WAS TO HAVE THE ACFT TOWED INTO THE GATE. THIS WOULD IMPOSE FINANCIAL RESTRAINTS UPON HIS CARRIER. CAPT IS CONCERNED THAT PAX BOARDING OR DEPLANING MAY ALSO BE AFFECTED BY JET BLAST AS COULD ANY MAINT PERSONNEL ON THE RAMP NEAR THOSE CLOSELY PARKED ACFT.

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.