B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Type 1829
Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
The following is a response I sent after receiving an email from a supervisor.  You can read my response that I sent.First of all I would like to offer my sincere apology for startling you and your maintenance crew.  The buck stops with me as the captain and I certainly take responsibility for what I failed to do as captain on that flight.I accomplished the walk around of that particular flight.  The fuel tech notified me that there was fuel dripping out of the number 2 engine.  I agreed with his finding and asked my first officer to notify maintenance about the leak.  I agree with you about fluid leaking out of a cold soaked engine is a known issue. How well known; (to the pilots) and how much fluid leaking on a cold soaked engine may be up to debate.  I had never witnessed it in over two and a half years on the airplane; my first officer has only witnessed it one time in the last five years.  When a pilot notices something out of the ordinary it is his responsibility to notify the proper department.  We do have a procedure in our QRH to address a fluid leak on a cold soaked engine; however; that procedure is used during engine start when ground personnel report a fluid leak beneath an engine.  That was not the case in this instance.  The procedure does not include a fluid leak noticed during a walk around.  Your techs decided to do the motoring without consulting my first officer or me.  If your personnel had offered me the option to start the engine while you monitored the leak; I most likely would have been fine with that.  The second paragraph of your email concerns me the most.  This could have hurt ground personnel and I take this very seriously.  Your statements are correct but you omit one very important item.  The tug driver cleared us to start the number two engine at the gate.  We absolutely own the beacon not being turned on.  I will not make any excuses for that.  We were out of sequence starting at the gate but again; no excuse.  This is how the sequence happened.  The tug driver said he was ready to push.  My FO (First Officer) asked if we should start at the gate or on the push.  I asked the tug driver what he wanted us to do as we might have to sit for up to five minutes (per our procedure) if the engine continued to leak.  He said it would be better to start at the gate as we would be blocking the taxi-way if we had an issue.  The ramp person/tug driver cleared us to start the number two engine.  We then proceeded to start the number two engine.  The ramp person said nothing on the push that we had done anything beyond what he had cleared us to do.   It may be known to you that you are required to get clearance from ground to start an engine at the gate but I cannot find anything in our SOP that addresses this airport or company policy.  This possibly should be addressed in a future SOP revision.I also take some issue with you on 'A couple of minutes past GO time.' I'm not sure what you are inferring but when something out of the normal is going on (for us) I slow down to make sure that everything is accomplished per procedure.  I am sure you would agree; safety is the first concern that we all have; not GO time.Thank you for your very valid concerns.  I do not take them lightly and will reflect on your comments.  I know we can all learn from the mistakes made today and make our airline one of the safest airlines in the world.
[Report narrative contained no additional information.]
B737 Captain reported starting an engine at the gate without all ground personnel being aware.