B757 captain reported concerns about accepting an aircraft with the fuel quantity totalizer deferred...

Narrative:

Originally; the MEL was designed to take a broken but flyable plane from a non-maintenance facility to a hub where it could be repaired. Now it is used to push broken planes all over the world for weeks until there is a perfect time to repair them. This was never the intent of MEL. Today we were dispatched a plane with no [fuel quantity] totalizer capability. Therefore the only way to know if there is a fuel leak is to look overhead (no forward EICAS gauges on 757 fleet); then add the two tanks together for a total fuel. This must be done continuously and is unrealistic on this plane. The FMC only calculates the fuel based on what is 'supposed' to be on board based upon fuel burn and original total fuel entered by the crew. There is no warning for a fuel leak. If the crew forgets to look up overhead and add the two gauges together; then compare with expected fuel; they will never know there is a leak until it is dire. Why accept an MEL which sets pilots up for failure? It was never the spirit of MEL.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 Captain reported concerns about accepting an aircraft with the fuel quantity totalizer deferred inoperative; because there is no easy way to identify a fuel leak in that scenario.

Narrative: Originally; the MEL was designed to take a broken but flyable plane from a non-maintenance facility to a hub where it could be repaired. Now it is used to push broken planes all over the world for weeks until there is a perfect time to repair them. This was never the intent of MEL. Today we were dispatched a plane with no [fuel quantity] totalizer capability. Therefore the only way to know if there is a fuel leak is to look overhead (no forward EICAS gauges on 757 fleet); then add the two tanks together for a total fuel. This must be done continuously and is unrealistic on this plane. The FMC only calculates the fuel based on what is 'supposed' to be on board based upon fuel burn and original total fuel entered by the crew. There is no warning for a fuel leak. If the crew forgets to look up overhead and add the two gauges together; then compare with expected fuel; they will never know there is a leak until it is dire. Why accept an MEL which sets pilots up for failure? It was never the spirit of MEL.

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.

Attributes
ACN	1610085
Time
Date	201901
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Component
Aircraft Component	Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Person 1
Function	Captain
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 161 Flight Crew Total 13500 Flight Crew Type 1191
Events
Anomaly	Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Other / Unknown

B757 captain reported concerns about accepting an aircraft with the fuel quantity totalizer deferred inoperative; because there is no easy way to identify a fuel leak in that scenario.