 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
A flight engineer accepting the aircraft for flight was critical of the fuel remaining in #2 tank as brought in by the previous flight engineer.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 192127 |
| Time | |
| Date | 199110 |
| Day | Fri |
| Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : mia |
| State Reference | FL |
| Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng |
| Flight Phase | ground : parked ground : preflight |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | flight crew : second officer |
| Qualification | pilot : atp pilot : commercial pilot : flight engineer pilot : instrument |
| Experience | flight time last 90 days : 105 flight time total : 3000 flight time type : 300 |
| ASRS Report | 192127 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other other : unspecified |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | Other |
| Supplementary | |
| Primary Problem | Aircraft |
| Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
An oncoming (relieving) crew member wrote up a fuel load discrepancy on an aircraft that I was the previous flight engineer on. The discrepancy read as follows: fuel load at gate found to be #1 tank 1500 pounds, #2 tank 14500 pounds, #3 tank 1500 pounds. The discrepancy was signed off my maintenance as 'actual fuel indicated was correct with what was on board, no discrepancy found.' apparently this crew member was concerned about the large amount of fuel in the #2 tank. Granted this is an unusual fuel load at flight termination (generally all tanks are even). However, this particular aircraft has its #2 fuel gauge placarded inoperative. I followed the flight manual procedure and burned fuel out of the #2 tank for ground operations prior to takeoff, since the #2 tank had a greater amount of fuel (as determined by a fuel slip). Just prior to takeoff I set the fuel panel for tank to engine on #1 and #3 and set the #2 tank to keep the xfeed line charged. I elected to maintain this confign throughout the flight profile for the following reason: the fuel management limitations are 1) that the #2 tank is not to be less than 2000 pounds below tanks #1 and #3. 2) no more than a 1000 pound split between #1 and #3 tanks. With these limitations in mind, I opted to maintain an exact balance between tanks #1 and #3 and not to xfeed from the #2 tank since the fuel level could only be determined by the average burn rate of tanks #1 and #3 (note: #2 fuel gauge placarded inoperative). I figured this confign would permit me to deal with any situation that would require xfeeding because I had ample fuel in the #2 tank that was well above the 2000 pounds less than tanks #1 and #3 limitation. Neither the flight manual or the MEL for #2 fuel tank inoperative require the #2 tank to be burned down to #1 and #3 tank levels. This is a recommended technique but as far as I can determine not a requirement. No limitation was broken in this situation. I have talked to various other flight crew members and to members of our safety commission regarding this issue and I will continue to operate under our carriers standard operating procedures. I am bringing this to your attention for advisory purposes.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A FE ACCEPTING THE ACFT FOR FLT WAS CRITICAL OF THE FUEL REMAINING IN #2 TANK AS BROUGHT IN BY THE PREVIOUS FE.
Narrative: AN ONCOMING (RELIEVING) CREW MEMBER WROTE UP A FUEL LOAD DISCREPANCY ON AN ACFT THAT I WAS THE PREVIOUS FE ON. THE DISCREPANCY READ AS FOLLOWS: FUEL LOAD AT GATE FOUND TO BE #1 TANK 1500 POUNDS, #2 TANK 14500 POUNDS, #3 TANK 1500 POUNDS. THE DISCREPANCY WAS SIGNED OFF MY MAINT AS 'ACTUAL FUEL INDICATED WAS CORRECT WITH WHAT WAS ON BOARD, NO DISCREPANCY FOUND.' APPARENTLY THIS CREW MEMBER WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LARGE AMOUNT OF FUEL IN THE #2 TANK. GRANTED THIS IS AN UNUSUAL FUEL LOAD AT FLT TERMINATION (GENERALLY ALL TANKS ARE EVEN). HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR ACFT HAS ITS #2 FUEL GAUGE PLACARDED INOP. I FOLLOWED THE FLT MANUAL PROC AND BURNED FUEL OUT OF THE #2 TANK FOR GND OPS PRIOR TO TKOF, SINCE THE #2 TANK HAD A GREATER AMOUNT OF FUEL (AS DETERMINED BY A FUEL SLIP). JUST PRIOR TO TKOF I SET THE FUEL PANEL FOR TANK TO ENG ON #1 AND #3 AND SET THE #2 TANK TO KEEP THE XFEED LINE CHARGED. I ELECTED TO MAINTAIN THIS CONFIGN THROUGHOUT THE FLT PROFILE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: THE FUEL MGMNT LIMITATIONS ARE 1) THAT THE #2 TANK IS NOT TO BE LESS THAN 2000 POUNDS BELOW TANKS #1 AND #3. 2) NO MORE THAN A 1000 POUND SPLIT BTWN #1 AND #3 TANKS. WITH THESE LIMITATIONS IN MIND, I OPTED TO MAINTAIN AN EXACT BAL BTWN TANKS #1 AND #3 AND NOT TO XFEED FROM THE #2 TANK SINCE THE FUEL LEVEL COULD ONLY BE DETERMINED BY THE AVERAGE BURN RATE OF TANKS #1 AND #3 (NOTE: #2 FUEL GAUGE PLACARDED INOP). I FIGURED THIS CONFIGN WOULD PERMIT ME TO DEAL WITH ANY SITUATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE XFEEDING BECAUSE I HAD AMPLE FUEL IN THE #2 TANK THAT WAS WELL ABOVE THE 2000 POUNDS LESS THAN TANKS #1 AND #3 LIMITATION. NEITHER THE FLT MANUAL OR THE MEL FOR #2 FUEL TANK INOP REQUIRE THE #2 TANK TO BE BURNED DOWN TO #1 AND #3 TANK LEVELS. THIS IS A RECOMMENDED TECHNIQUE BUT AS FAR AS I CAN DETERMINE NOT A REQUIREMENT. NO LIMITATION WAS BROKEN IN THIS SITUATION. I HAVE TALKED TO VARIOUS OTHER FLT CREW MEMBERS AND TO MEMBERS OF OUR SAFETY COMMISSION REGARDING THIS ISSUE AND I WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE UNDER OUR CARRIERS STANDARD OPERATING PROCS. I AM BRINGING THIS TO YOUR ATTN FOR ADVISORY PURPOSES.
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.