Narrative:

The flight/aircraft was dispatched with an inoperative right main fuel tank gauge. The gauge had been inoperative for several days. A fuel slip was provided to the captain by the fueler after fueling had been completed. The fueler referenced the difference between 2 truck meter readings on the fuel slip and indicated that although only 641 gals were required to be added to meet release fuel, he had added 647 gals. Some communication difficulties were experienced due to ramp noise and the foreign accent of the fueler. The captain's previous experience was that although a sticking procedure is permitted under near level ramp conditions, the tanks with inoperative fuel gauges were usually filled measuring the fuel with the truck gauges or from other operable aircraft tank gauges. The reference to the truck meter readings on the fuel slip and the absence of both before and after stick readings led the captain to believe that the fuel had been measured by the truck gauges. The MEL requires that a crew member monitor the sticking procedure if that means of measuring the fuel is used. Since the captain was under the impression that the sticking measurement method was not used he did not monitor a sticking measurement. An FAA aci administered a route check ride on the flight. After landing at the destination airport, he informed the captain that the aircraft was fueled using the sticking measurement method. Noncompliance with the MEL requirement for a crew member to observe a stick measurement at the completion of the fueling was primarily attributed to the fact that the crew was not aware that the stick method of measurement was used until after landing at the destination airport. Contributing factors include: 1) no clear indication on the fuel slip that the stick method of measurement was used, 2) communication difficulties between the captain and the fueler, 3) limited time available to the flight crew to ascertain all the factors pertaining to the flight due to extreme pressure from company management to have on time departures, 4) the unavailability of a personal copy of the MEL for the first officer to utilize in his preflight inspections. This situation could be prevented in the future if the fuel slip format is changed to include a place to clearly indicate which method of 3 methods of fuel measurement is used. In the future the captain will always make it a pint to specifically ask the fueler which method of measurement was used.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PIC OF ACR MLG LED TO A MISINTERP OF MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST DURING GND FUELING OF HIS ACFT THAT HAD AN INOP RIGHT MAIN FUEL GAUGE.

Narrative: THE FLT/ACFT WAS DISPATCHED WITH AN INOP RIGHT MAIN FUEL TANK GAUGE. THE GAUGE HAD BEEN INOP FOR SEVERAL DAYS. A FUEL SLIP WAS PROVIDED TO THE CAPT BY THE FUELER AFTER FUELING HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THE FUELER REFERENCED THE DIFFERENCE BTWN 2 TRUCK METER READINGS ON THE FUEL SLIP AND INDICATED THAT ALTHOUGH ONLY 641 GALS WERE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO MEET RELEASE FUEL, HE HAD ADDED 647 GALS. SOME COM DIFFICULTIES WERE EXPERIENCED DUE TO RAMP NOISE AND THE FOREIGN ACCENT OF THE FUELER. THE CAPT'S PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WAS THAT ALTHOUGH A STICKING PROC IS PERMITTED UNDER NEAR LEVEL RAMP CONDITIONS, THE TANKS WITH INOP FUEL GAUGES WERE USUALLY FILLED MEASURING THE FUEL WITH THE TRUCK GAUGES OR FROM OTHER OPERABLE ACFT TANK GAUGES. THE REF TO THE TRUCK METER READINGS ON THE FUEL SLIP AND THE ABSENCE OF BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER STICK READINGS LED THE CAPT TO BELIEVE THAT THE FUEL HAD BEEN MEASURED BY THE TRUCK GAUGES. THE MEL REQUIRES THAT A CREW MEMBER MONITOR THE STICKING PROC IF THAT MEANS OF MEASURING THE FUEL IS USED. SINCE THE CAPT WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE STICKING MEASUREMENT METHOD WAS NOT USED HE DID NOT MONITOR A STICKING MEASUREMENT. AN FAA ACI ADMINISTERED A RTE CHK RIDE ON THE FLT. AFTER LNDG AT THE DEST ARPT, HE INFORMED THE CAPT THAT THE ACFT WAS FUELED USING THE STICKING MEASUREMENT METHOD. NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE MEL REQUIREMENT FOR A CREW MEMBER TO OBSERVE A STICK MEASUREMENT AT THE COMPLETION OF THE FUELING WAS PRIMARILY ATTRIBUTED TO THE FACT THAT THE CREW WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE STICK METHOD OF MEASUREMENT WAS USED UNTIL AFTER LNDG AT THE DEST ARPT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS INCLUDE: 1) NO CLR INDICATION ON THE FUEL SLIP THAT THE STICK METHOD OF MEASUREMENT WAS USED, 2) COM DIFFICULTIES BTWN THE CAPT AND THE FUELER, 3) LIMITED TIME AVAILABLE TO THE FLT CREW TO ASCERTAIN ALL THE FACTORS PERTAINING TO THE FLT DUE TO EXTREME PRESSURE FROM COMPANY MGMNT TO HAVE ON TIME DEPS, 4) THE UNAVAILABILITY OF A PERSONAL COPY OF THE MEL FOR THE F/O TO UTILIZE IN HIS PREFLT INSPECTIONS. THIS SITUATION COULD BE PREVENTED IN THE FUTURE IF THE FUEL SLIP FORMAT IS CHANGED TO INCLUDE A PLACE TO CLEARLY INDICATE WHICH METHOD OF 3 METHODS OF FUEL MEASUREMENT IS USED. IN THE FUTURE THE CAPT WILL ALWAYS MAKE IT A PINT TO SPECIFICALLY ASK THE FUELER WHICH METHOD OF MEASUREMENT WAS USED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.