Narrative:

The aircraft had an existing MEL for flight deck fuel qty right/H ind inoperative. Complying with the requirements of the MEL; the fueler and contract mx personnel used the fuel measuring sticks to determine the rh wing fuel quantity. The mx contractor believed that the outboard fuel measuring stick was reading erroneously and deferred it as well (28-16B). The MEL allows it to be deferred if tank fuel quantity can be determined by fuel quantity indicators (also MEL'd for the associated side) or by other acceptable means. Note: an operative dripstick within the same tank may be used.the guidance provided to the pilots within the MEL or supplemental procedures are vague as to the exact actions taken to ensure that 'correct fuel loading' has been achieved 'by acceptable means' for the flight crew to verify. The lack of guidance invites a false sense of security when a 'trained' non mx base contract mechanic says 'good to go.'upon arrival to [the destination] and opening the main entry door; a FAA mx inspector entered; identified himself and asked the ca a couple questions about the problem with the fuel system of the AC. The visit was short. It was followed by a mx tech who was very quick to say that the contract mx at the departure airport cut corners and deviated from proper procedure in determining the correct fuel load. He stated that the aircraft should have been deplaned and the fuel transfer method should have been used. That was not done and although the flight crew was adequately confident that sufficient fuel was on board the aircraft and the mels were complete and compliant; it is of concern to us that the proper method of determining fuel load was not done properly. There was no known fuel deficiency on the flight and the flight was completed with no other abnormalities.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 flight crew reported MEL fueling procedures at Contract Maintenance location may have countered company policy.

Narrative: The aircraft had an existing MEL for FLT DECK FUEL QTY R/H IND INOP. Complying with the requirements of the MEL; the fueler and contract MX personnel used the Fuel Measuring Sticks to determine the RH wing fuel quantity. The MX contractor believed that the outboard Fuel Measuring Stick was reading erroneously and deferred it as well (28-16B). The MEL allows it to be deferred if tank fuel quantity can be determined by Fuel Quantity Indicators (also MEL'd for the associated side) or by other acceptable means. Note: An operative dripstick within the same tank may be used.The guidance provided to the pilots within the MEL or Supplemental Procedures are vague as to the exact actions taken to ensure that 'correct fuel loading' has been achieved 'by acceptable means' for the flight crew to verify. The lack of guidance invites a false sense of security when a 'trained' non MX base contract mechanic says 'good to go.'Upon arrival to [the destination] and opening the main entry door; a FAA MX Inspector entered; identified himself and asked the CA a couple questions about the problem with the fuel system of the AC. The visit was short. It was followed by a MX Tech who was very quick to say that the contract MX at the departure airport cut corners and deviated from proper procedure in determining the correct fuel load. He stated that the Aircraft should have been deplaned and the fuel transfer method should have been used. That was not done and although the flight crew was adequately confident that sufficient fuel was on board the aircraft and the MELs were complete and compliant; it is of concern to us that the proper method of determining fuel load was not done properly. There was no known fuel deficiency on the flight and the flight was completed with no other abnormalities.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.