Narrative:

The following pertains to aircraft X; a crj-700 aircraft; in december 2012; flight ZZZ to ZZZ1. Upon arriving to the aircraft for flight; I performed my preflight inspection. I noted a leak coming from the aft fuel drain mast at a rate in excess of five drops per minute. After notifying the captain; he notified dispatch via acars of our situation. Time went by and nothing came from the notification. It just happened that there was a broken embraer aircraft in ZZZ along with two company mechanics. They checked out the situation and the leak had ceased from the aft mast. They also noted a time deferral (amm task 28-11-00) that had been active since may 2012; pertaining to a daily inspection in regards to the leak. Nevertheless; the fuel leak was excessive and both I and [the] captain thought the leak warranted another look. So captain balanced out the aircraft logbook with an 'entered in error' and we departed for ZZZ1. Upon arrival in ZZZ1; I hopped out of the aircraft and went back to the drain mast to check for a leak. Not only was it leaking; but there was a trail of fuel and a puddle. That was written-up in detail; about the excessive fuel leakage; the puddle and trail of fuel; into the logbook. The mechanics arrived to look at our oil situation (to be covered a little later) and the fuel leak. They simply balanced out [signed-off] the logbook; took no corrective action and once again cited the time deferral. We questioned how a time deferral; could be active for almost seven months. To which the response we received was; 'I don't know.' we also asked when it might be fixed; getting the same carefree response. This situation is in clear violation of the time deferral; so captain and I did not feel comfortable taking the aircraft. We refused it and eventually took another aircraft back to ZZZ a few hours later. The apathy and oversight of this situation is appalling. According to the time deferral we had a running leak and based upon the location we have to look under note number 4. Note-4 states the following: 'repair the leak immediately.' even if we had 'up to four drops'; which is defined as a 'drip' on page number 2 of the time deferral; it states the following on page number 3; note-5 (note-5 is based on the location of the fuel leak column; in this situation it is 'fuel drains under the fuselage and aft of the [main] wheel well of the time deferral: 'inspect underside of the fuselage and ensure no traces of fuel are present. If no traces of fuel are present on the underside of the fuselage; no immediate repair action required. Continue monitoring leak between flights and repair leak at the end of the day. If traces of fuel are present on the underside of the fuselage; repair leak immediately.' this time deferral; as applicable to this situation; is not being used correctly. It is not a crutch to keep an aircraft that is leaking fuel in service for seven months. It is the age old adage of; 'if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it; does it make a sound.' in this case; if a mechanic isn't there to see a leak; but the pilots are; does the airplane still leak? Yes it does and it needs to be repaired; especially when a controlling document and two professional pilots observe the situation unfolding. We understand fuel evaporates at a quick pace; but it doesn't mean there wasn't fuel. In addition it helps to use common sense when it comes to daily inspection. Going out to a static airplane that hasn't flown that day does not constitute a proper daily inspection. In regards to the second issue of this crj-700 aircraft we had on flight ZZZ-ZZZ1; what our fom-1 calls an oil leak (page 26; abnormal engine section). When we taxied out; with both engines running because of our short taxi; I normally check the oil level (it is part of the after start and the before takeoff checklists to check the EICAS; the menu page is part of the whole EICAS system and therefore should be checked) and I noted the quantity to be 42% on the left side and 46% on the right. When we leveled off at cruise I checked the quantity about an hour later and it was at 40% on the left side. Before our decent into ZZZ1 I checked it one last time and noted a quantity of 36%. It took us two hours and 49 minutes from out to in. That gives us a rate of 6% drop in under three hours; which according to fom-1 that defines a leak. It was written-up and the mechanics simply topped off the oil quantity. No attempt was made to find the leak; once again just a quick fix was utilized to get the aircraft out. These issues are like notes from the aircraft; telling us there are problems. Small issues in comparison to what those issues can lead to if given the time and opportunity to develop. I truly hope change comes from this and light has been brought to this. Aircraft X is not the only crj-700 that has this issue. If it can be nipped in the bud now; it will only save time; money and promote safety down the road. In closing I want to part with a quote from senior level management's commitment to safety and security about safety and security are core values of our airline. For that reason; our air carrier complies with all applicable regulatory requirements and standards. The issue occurred due to a lack of understanding per the time deferral and perhaps incorrect precedence being set by maintenance when it comes to fixing our aircraft. The best way to avoid a recurrence of this issue would be to have maintenance be more preventative and more astute when it comes to pilot write-ups. I am fully aware that not all write-ups require immediate attention; but those involving key parts of the plane (i.e. Fuel; oil and especially when the fuel line in question runs through the pressure bulkhead of the aircraft); maintenance should take a longer look then to simply and incorrectly pass the buck off. An aircraft is not meant to fly with a time deferral indefinitely. A time deferral is there to allow the aircraft to be fixed at a later time at a maintenance base. Besides; this time deferral was moot simply because it was followed incorrectly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Two pilots report about fuel leaking from the most Aft Drain Mast on three CRJ-700 aircraft that have been deferred under a company Time Deferral that would not be allowed under an MEL or CDL deferral.

Narrative: The following pertains to Aircraft X; a CRJ-700 aircraft; in December 2012; Flight ZZZ to ZZZ1. Upon arriving to the aircraft for flight; I performed my preflight inspection. I noted a leak coming from the Aft Fuel Drain Mast at a rate in excess of five drops per minute. After notifying the Captain; he notified Dispatch via ACARs of our situation. Time went by and nothing came from the notification. It just happened that there was a broken Embraer aircraft in ZZZ along with two company mechanics. They checked out the situation and the leak had ceased from the aft mast. They also noted a Time Deferral (AMM Task 28-11-00) that had been active since May 2012; pertaining to a daily inspection in regards to the leak. Nevertheless; the fuel leak was excessive and both I and [the] Captain thought the leak warranted another look. So Captain balanced out the Aircraft Logbook with an 'entered in error' and we departed for ZZZ1. Upon arrival in ZZZ1; I hopped out of the aircraft and went back to the drain mast to check for a leak. Not only was it leaking; but there was a trail of fuel and a puddle. That was written-up in detail; about the excessive fuel leakage; the puddle and trail of fuel; into the Logbook. The mechanics arrived to look at our oil situation (to be covered a little later) and the fuel leak. They simply balanced out [signed-off] the Logbook; took no corrective action and once again cited the Time Deferral. We questioned how a Time Deferral; could be active for almost seven months. To which the response we received was; 'I don't know.' We also asked when it might be fixed; getting the same carefree response. This situation is in clear violation of the Time Deferral; so Captain and I did not feel comfortable taking the aircraft. We refused it and eventually took another aircraft back to ZZZ a few hours later. The apathy and oversight of this situation is appalling. According to the Time Deferral we had a running leak and based upon the location we have to look under Note Number 4. Note-4 states the following: 'Repair the leak immediately.' Even if we had 'up to four drops'; which is defined as a 'Drip' on Page Number 2 of the Time Deferral; it states the following on Page Number 3; Note-5 (Note-5 is based on the location of the fuel leak column; in this situation it is 'Fuel drains under the fuselage and aft of the [main] wheel well of the Time Deferral: 'Inspect underside of the fuselage and ensure no traces of fuel are present. If no traces of fuel are present on the underside of the fuselage; no immediate repair action required. Continue monitoring leak between flights and repair leak at the end of the day. If traces of fuel are present on the underside of the fuselage; repair leak immediately.' This Time Deferral; as applicable to this situation; is not being used correctly. It is not a crutch to keep an aircraft that is leaking fuel in service for seven months. It is the age old adage of; 'If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it; does it make a sound.' In this case; if a Mechanic isn't there to see a leak; but the pilots are; does the airplane still leak? Yes it does and it needs to be repaired; especially when a controlling document and two professional pilots observe the situation unfolding. We understand fuel evaporates at a quick pace; but it doesn't mean there wasn't fuel. In addition it helps to use common sense when it comes to daily inspection. Going out to a static airplane that hasn't flown that day does not constitute a proper daily inspection. In regards to the second issue of this CRJ-700 aircraft we had on flight ZZZ-ZZZ1; what our FOM-1 calls an oil leak (Page 26; Abnormal ENG section). When we taxied out; with both engines running because of our short taxi; I normally check the oil level (it is part of the AFTER START and the BEFORE TAKEOFF Checklists to check the EICAS; the Menu Page is part of the whole EICAS System and therefore should be checked) and I noted the quantity to be 42% on the left side and 46% on the right. When we leveled off at cruise I checked the quantity about an hour later and it was at 40% on the left side. Before our decent into ZZZ1 I checked it one last time and noted a quantity of 36%. It took us two hours and 49 minutes from OUT to IN. That gives us a rate of 6% drop in under three hours; which according to FOM-1 that defines a leak. It was written-up and the mechanics simply topped off the oil quantity. No attempt was made to find the leak; once again just a quick fix was utilized to get the aircraft out. These issues are like notes from the aircraft; telling us there are problems. Small issues in comparison to what those issues can lead to if given the time and opportunity to develop. I truly hope change comes from this and light has been brought to this. Aircraft X is not the only CRJ-700 that has this issue. If it can be nipped in the bud now; it will only save time; money and promote safety down the road. In closing I want to part with a quote from Senior Level Management's Commitment to Safety and Security about Safety and Security are core values of our airline. For that reason; our Air Carrier complies with all applicable regulatory requirements and standards. The issue occurred due to a lack of understanding per the Time Deferral and perhaps incorrect precedence being set by Maintenance when it comes to fixing our aircraft. The best way to avoid a recurrence of this issue would be to have Maintenance be more preventative and more astute when it comes to pilot write-ups. I am fully aware that not all write-ups require immediate attention; but those involving key parts of the plane (i.e. fuel; oil and especially when the fuel line in question runs through the pressure bulkhead of the aircraft); Maintenance should take a longer look then to simply and incorrectly pass the buck off. An aircraft is not meant to fly with a Time Deferral indefinitely. A Time Deferral is there to allow the aircraft to be fixed at a later time at a Maintenance Base. Besides; this Time Deferral was moot simply because it was followed incorrectly.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.