Narrative:

We picked up the aircraft with MEL fwd auxiliary transfer pumps both inoperative.I reviewed the MEL and was concerned about fuel loading takeoff performance system (tps) identifier. I called load control and asked what this meant. After being put on hold for a while; they explained that this meant that the unrecoverable fuel in the fwd auxiliary tank should not be shown or considered as ballast fuel on the tps and was put into empty operating weight where it would stay. MEL states 1. Fuel in fwd auxiliary tank is unusable. 2. The note explains aft auxiliary tank fuel may be considered unusable and fuel may be left in it under certain conditions. We had no aft auxiliary tank fuel; so I did not think this to be a problem. In the cockpit; I placed a second call to a load control supervisor about the minimum zero fuel weight (mzfw) not being reduced by the amount of fuel in fwd auxiliary tank; and he assured me this was proper since the MEL says reduce the actual zero fuel weight (ZFW) and not the mzfw. However; the MEL placard does call it ballast fuel. This seemed to be a conflict of mzfw procedure; but since they are the ones to interpret the MEL; I accepted it.the next day; the first officer spoke with another pilot; and the point was brought up that the aircraft was out of auxiliary fuel balance. I am not sure this is a problem since the auxiliary fuel and balance figure is an aircraft flight manual (afm) limitation and this condition is MEL approved. Nothing about the tps flagged this condition. I called load control twice about fwd auxiliary tank fuel in this configuration including a supervisor; and no one believed the aircraft was fueled in an improper condition.the whole premise of this MEL is when the aircraft was previously in flight to have fwd auxiliary tank pumps fail in flight; which means fuel will be in fwd auxiliary tank with fuel exhausted in aft auxiliary tank by landing. This was the condition of the aircraft when I picked it up. The MEL talks a lot about how to handle the ZFW part of the equation; and I believe leads you down a path that this fuel loading has been taken into account. I believe the MEL note that reads some of the fuel in the aft auxiliary tank may require to be considered unusable is misleading; since by all odds; there will be no fuel in the aft auxiliary tank at this time; as was in my case. If the afm limitation still applies in this condition; I believe the MEL should clearly state that it only applies if there is no more than 400 pounds of fuel in the fwd auxiliary tank. This would make this MEL only apply in a very narrow circumstance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MD-80 Captain reported what he feels is a flaw in a company MEL procedure dealing with Forward Aux Transfer Pumps Inoperative.

Narrative: We picked up the aircraft with MEL FWD AUX TRANSFER PUMPS BOTH INOP.I reviewed the MEL and was concerned about fuel loading Takeoff Performance System (TPS) identifier. I called load control and asked what this meant. After being put on hold for a while; they explained that this meant that the unrecoverable fuel in the FWD AUX tank should not be shown or considered as ballast fuel on the TPS and was put into Empty Operating Weight where it would stay. MEL states 1. Fuel in FWD AUX TANK is unusable. 2. The note explains AFT AUX TANK FUEL may be considered unusable and fuel may be left in it under certain conditions. We had no AFT AUX TANK FUEL; so I did not think this to be a problem. In the cockpit; I placed a second call to a load control supervisor about the Minimum Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW) not being reduced by the amount of fuel in FWD AUX tank; and he assured me this was proper since the MEL says reduce the actual Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) and not the MZFW. However; the MEL placard does call it ballast fuel. This seemed to be a conflict of MZFW procedure; but since they are the ones to interpret the MEL; I accepted it.The next day; the First Officer spoke with another pilot; and the point was brought up that the aircraft was out of AUX fuel balance. I am not sure this is a problem since the AUX fuel and balance figure is an Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) limitation and this condition is MEL approved. Nothing about the TPS flagged this condition. I called load control twice about FWD AUX TANK fuel in this configuration including a supervisor; and no one believed the aircraft was fueled in an improper condition.The whole premise of this MEL is when the aircraft was previously in flight to have FWD AUX TANK pumps fail in flight; which means fuel will be in FWD AUX TANK with fuel exhausted in AFT AUX TANK by landing. This was the condition of the aircraft when I picked it up. The MEL talks a lot about how to handle the ZFW part of the equation; and I believe leads you down a path that this fuel loading has been taken into account. I believe the MEL note that reads some of the fuel in the AFT AUX TANK may require to be considered unusable is misleading; since by all odds; there will be no fuel in the AFT AUX TANK at this time; as was in my case. If the AFM LIMITATION still applies in this condition; I believe the MEL should clearly state that it only applies if there is no more than 400 LBS of fuel in the FWD AUX TANK. This would make this MEL only apply in a very narrow circumstance.

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.