Narrative:

Msp tower gate radio was contacted on 126.35 for push back clearance. We were advised that push back and start were approved. At some point during push back, the copilot advised gate radio on 126.35 that we would need to draw power or run up an engine to start the remaining engines. This was acknowledged by gate radio. Number 4 engine was started at the gate due to an inoperative APU. With the airplane pushed back and the brakes set, we received clearance from the mechanic on the ground to start the remaining engines due to the cold temperature, no additional power was needed from the operating engine and the remaining 3 engines were started normally using idle power only. At some point during start, I heard comments on msp ground control, 121.9 regarding an airplane that had 'hit a wing tip'. With the arrival of numerous pieces of emergency apparatus to our location, I inquired of ground control as to what had happened. Information was very slow in coming and our involvement was difficult to ascertain. Msp dispatch was notified and I requested the chief pilot be notified. The airplane was not moved until approximately 1 hour later when the tower advised us that the FAA (general) had released us by which time we had spoke to dispatcher via radio who also released us to continue to lax, the only information given us came from a company mechanic who plugged in a headset and advised us that a small aircraft had taxied in 'close proximity' to our rear and had been tipped onto a wing tip. He further stated that the wing and propeller had been damaged. No power or engine was ever above idle power. I believe to the best of my recollection that we adhered to proper pushback procedures both FAA and we had pushback and start clearance from msp gate radio, 126.35. Gate radio was notified of our power needs for starting the additional engines. We were cleared for the crossbleed start by ground personnel. We had a 'wave off' prior to our being aware of the incident behind us. Does or did gate radio advise msp ground control of our pushback and possible power needs? Why would a small aircraft pass behind a heavy which was under power? One contributing factor in this incident is the present msp tower procedures which has all initial pushback communications on gate radio until 'released to monitor msp ground'. We (the pilot) and msp ground are not aware of what each other are or might be doing. Unless gate radio advises the ground controller of our pushback and power up needs, he may not be aware of a hazardous condition. It is my understanding that this incident was witnessed by a company agent who had been working the flight. I believe he was surprised to see this light airplane pass 'very close' to the rear of our aircraft. A flight attendant noticed the light airplane after the incident and commented to me 'how unusually close the airplane appeared to be in proximity to our airplane'. Prior to taxi, I inquired of msp gate radio how, after being given push-back and start and having advised them of our power needs, how did this light airplane happen to get behind us? No comment was forthcoming. Supplemental information from acn 81875: later the tower sup called us back to tell us that the air carrier often did not hold us responsible and cleared us to taxi. This was also relayed to us through our dispatch office. Tower also advised us that the occupants were not harmed. A contributing factor was an medium large transport that taxied in front of us to use gate but was turned around by the gate handler. It had to make a 270 degree turn in front of us and used quite a lot of power.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GA SMA TAXIED IN TO CLOSE PROX TO REAR OF WDB AND WAS BLOWN ON WING TIP BY JET BLAST.

Narrative: MSP TWR GATE RADIO WAS CONTACTED ON 126.35 FOR PUSH BACK CLRNC. WE WERE ADVISED THAT PUSH BACK AND START WERE APPROVED. AT SOME POINT DURING PUSH BACK, THE COPLT ADVISED GATE RADIO ON 126.35 THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DRAW POWER OR RUN UP AN ENGINE TO START THE REMAINING ENGINES. THIS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY GATE RADIO. NUMBER 4 ENGINE WAS STARTED AT THE GATE DUE TO AN INOP APU. WITH THE AIRPLANE PUSHED BACK AND THE BRAKES SET, WE RECEIVED CLRNC FROM THE MECHANIC ON THE GND TO START THE REMAINING ENGINES DUE TO THE COLD TEMPERATURE, NO ADDITIONAL POWER WAS NEEDED FROM THE OPERATING ENGINE AND THE REMAINING 3 ENGINES WERE STARTED NORMALLY USING IDLE POWER ONLY. AT SOME POINT DURING START, I HEARD COMMENTS ON MSP GND CTL, 121.9 REGARDING AN AIRPLANE THAT HAD 'HIT A WING TIP'. WITH THE ARRIVAL OF NUMEROUS PIECES OF EMER APPARATUS TO OUR LOCATION, I INQUIRED OF GND CTL AS TO WHAT HAD HAPPENED. INFORMATION WAS VERY SLOW IN COMING AND OUR INVOLVEMENT WAS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN. MSP DISPATCH WAS NOTIFIED AND I REQUESTED THE CHIEF PLT BE NOTIFIED. THE AIRPLANE WAS NOT MOVED UNTIL APPROX 1 HOUR LATER WHEN THE TWR ADVISED US THAT THE FAA (GENERAL) HAD RELEASED US BY WHICH TIME WE HAD SPOKE TO DISPATCHER VIA RADIO WHO ALSO RELEASED US TO CONTINUE TO LAX, THE ONLY INFORMATION GIVEN US CAME FROM A COMPANY MECHANIC WHO PLUGGED IN A HEADSET AND ADVISED US THAT A SMA HAD TAXIED IN 'CLOSE PROXIMITY' TO OUR REAR AND HAD BEEN TIPPED ONTO A WING TIP. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE WING AND PROP HAD BEEN DAMAGED. NO POWER OR ENGINE WAS EVER ABOVE IDLE POWER. I BELIEVE TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION THAT WE ADHERED TO PROPER PUSHBACK PROCEDURES BOTH FAA AND WE HAD PUSHBACK AND START CLRNC FROM MSP GATE RADIO, 126.35. GATE RADIO WAS NOTIFIED OF OUR POWER NEEDS FOR STARTING THE ADDITIONAL ENGINES. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE CROSSBLEED START BY GND PERSONNEL. WE HAD A 'WAVE OFF' PRIOR TO OUR BEING AWARE OF THE INCIDENT BEHIND US. DOES OR DID GATE RADIO ADVISE MSP GND CTL OF OUR PUSHBACK AND POSSIBLE POWER NEEDS? WHY WOULD A SMA PASS BEHIND A HEAVY WHICH WAS UNDER POWER? ONE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN THIS INCIDENT IS THE PRESENT MSP TWR PROCEDURES WHICH HAS ALL INITIAL PUSHBACK COMMUNICATIONS ON GATE RADIO UNTIL 'RELEASED TO MONITOR MSP GND'. WE (THE PLT) AND MSP GND ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT EACH OTHER ARE OR MIGHT BE DOING. UNLESS GATE RADIO ADVISES THE GND CTLR OF OUR PUSHBACK AND POWER UP NEEDS, HE MAY NOT BE AWARE OF A HAZARDOUS CONDITION. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS INCIDENT WAS WITNESSED BY A COMPANY AGENT WHO HAD BEEN WORKING THE FLIGHT. I BELIEVE HE WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THIS LIGHT AIRPLANE PASS 'VERY CLOSE' TO THE REAR OF OUR ACFT. A FLT ATTENDANT NOTICED THE LIGHT AIRPLANE AFTER THE INCIDENT AND COMMENTED TO ME 'HOW UNUSUALLY CLOSE THE AIRPLANE APPEARED TO BE IN PROXIMITY TO OUR AIRPLANE'. PRIOR TO TAXI, I INQUIRED OF MSP GATE RADIO HOW, AFTER BEING GIVEN PUSH-BACK AND START AND HAVING ADVISED THEM OF OUR POWER NEEDS, HOW DID THIS LIGHT AIRPLANE HAPPEN TO GET BEHIND US? NO COMMENT WAS FORTHCOMING. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 81875: LATER THE TWR SUP CALLED US BACK TO TELL US THAT THE AIR CARRIER OFTEN DID NOT HOLD US RESPONSIBLE AND CLRED US TO TAXI. THIS WAS ALSO RELAYED TO US THROUGH OUR DISPATCH OFFICE. TWR ALSO ADVISED US THAT THE OCCUPANTS WERE NOT HARMED. A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS AN MLG THAT TAXIED IN FRONT OF US TO USE GATE BUT WAS TURNED AROUND BY THE GATE HANDLER. IT HAD TO MAKE A 270 DEG TURN IN FRONT OF US AND USED QUITE A LOT OF POWER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.