Narrative:

We landed overweight due to a diversion caused by an aircraft malfunction.prior to departure from [the] airport we were delayed for 54 minutes due to a maintenance check for a malfunctioning center fuel gauge. The write up was a repeat write up of 5 occasions that we could see in the logbook. This malfunction renders the aircraft undispatchable on ETOPS flight and on flights more than 50 miles from shore. We spoke with [maintenance] about the problem and their plan was to restrict [the aircraft] to non ETOPS operations once the jet was flown back to the [home base]. They said that if the fuel gauge was bite checked and then the transducers held up and the gauge was working on the gate that we would be good to go. [Maintenance] speculated that the cause was intermittent faulty wiring. So the fuel gauge passed the bite check and we were off.shortly after leveling off at cruise we received a fuel disagree-fuel qty EICAS message. We compared the fuel totalizer to the calculated and there was about a 10K pound difference with the totalizer being lower. We monitored the situation for 10-15 minutes and the difference was rapidly changing up and down between a 6-14k pound differences. We selected calculated fuel on the FMS to get rid of the EICAS message and assumed but couldn't be sure that the totalizer amount was correct. We looked at the fuel engine leak QRH procedure. We didn't really want to press on another 30 minutes out to determine if we had a definite leak and the idea of entering the oceanic portion of our flight with a faulty fuel gauge gave us a lot of concern given what we knew about the MEL restrictions for this malfunction. After recalling the [relief first officer] to the cockpit and discussing the situation we contacted dispatch to coordinate a possible diversion. After consulting dispatch the decision was made to divert. We reviewed the QRH procedure for overweight landing and determined that we could land in safely. As a precaution and after an uneventful landing the fire trucks met us; inspected the jet and after getting an all clear from the fire rescue team we proceeded to a parking stand. Afterwards the man who did the wheel inspection came to the cockpit to inform us that the wheel brakes were in good shape. After parking the team did an amazing job taking care of us. They went above and beyond to help us and our passengers. They just happened to have a spare 767 parked right next to us and we were able to transfer the passengers; crew; cargo and catering to the new jet. Every one of us evaluated our fitness for duty and agreed to extend our duty day by 2 hours in order to complete the flight.I coordinated my PA's on the ground with the [foreign] speakers so that everyone was getting the same information.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The flight crew of a B767-300 reported that during cruise they got a 'Fuel Disagree-Fuel Quantity' EICAS message.

Narrative: We landed overweight due to a diversion caused by an Aircraft Malfunction.Prior to departure from [the] airport we were delayed for 54 minutes due to a maintenance check for a malfunctioning center fuel gauge. The write up was a repeat write up of 5 occasions that we could see in the logbook. This malfunction renders the Aircraft undispatchable on ETOPS flight and on flights more than 50 miles from shore. We spoke with [Maintenance] about the problem and their plan was to restrict [the aircraft] to non ETOPS operations once the Jet was flown back to the [home base]. They said that if the fuel gauge was bite checked and then the transducers held up and the gauge was working on the gate that we would be good to go. [Maintenance] speculated that the cause was intermittent faulty wiring. So the fuel gauge passed the bite check and we were off.Shortly after leveling off at cruise we received a FUEL DISAGREE-FUEL QTY EICAS message. We compared the fuel totalizer to the calculated and there was about a 10K pound difference with the totalizer being lower. We monitored the situation for 10-15 minutes and the difference was rapidly changing up and down between a 6-14k pound differences. We selected calculated fuel on the FMS to get rid of the EICAS message and assumed but couldn't be sure that the totalizer amount was correct. We looked at the Fuel Engine Leak QRH procedure. We didn't really want to press on another 30 minutes out to determine if we had a definite leak and the idea of entering the oceanic portion of our flight with a faulty fuel gauge gave us a lot of concern given what we knew about the MEL restrictions for this malfunction. After recalling the [Relief First Officer] to the cockpit and discussing the situation we contacted dispatch to coordinate a possible diversion. After consulting dispatch the decision was made to divert. We reviewed the QRH procedure for overweight landing and determined that we could land in safely. As a precaution and after an uneventful landing the fire trucks met us; inspected the jet and after getting an all clear from the Fire Rescue team we proceeded to a parking stand. Afterwards the man who did the wheel inspection came to the cockpit to inform us that the wheel brakes were in good shape. After parking the team did an amazing job taking care of us. They went above and beyond to help us and our passengers. They just happened to have a spare 767 parked right next to us and we were able to transfer the passengers; crew; cargo and catering to the new jet. Every one of us evaluated our fitness for duty and agreed to extend our duty day by 2 hours in order to complete the flight.I coordinated my PA's on the ground with the [foreign] speakers so that everyone was getting the same information.

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.