Narrative:

During a morning preflight inspection, with otherwise correct indications and fuel slip confirmation, one main quantity gauge would not test properly. I asked gate agent, 'do we have a mechanic here?' her answer, 'yes, we have overnight maintenance. I'll get him.' he arrived literally within seconds. These facts as well as his physical appearance led me to believe that he was a company employee. I did not ask for identify. 2 gauges were pulled out and put back. The main quantity gauge tested normally. The center tank was empty, as released. Since the mechanic was assumed to be company, no call was made to maintenance before or after his appearance. It has since occurred to me that communication between us had been sufficiently stunted that english may not have been his primary language. To several questions, his limited response was taken to be a clear indication that he neither wanted nor expected to see the log. He departed with no further communication, and at no point did anyone indicate, nor did it appear, that the subsequent pushback was anything other than normal. As a follow-up, I did enter in the aircraft log arriving bos that the center tank quantity gauge (previously empty) was now not testing properly. Both main tanks had continued to function normally. For contract maintenance proper procedure requires call to maintenance prior to flight.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG FLC FAILS TO COMPLY WITH COMPANY PROCS, FAILS TO MAKE LOGBOOK ENTRY WHEN FUEL GAUGE MALFUNCTIONS. RPTR BELIEVES MECH TO BE COMPANY EMPLOYEE.

Narrative: DURING A MORNING PREFLT INSPECTION, WITH OTHERWISE CORRECT INDICATIONS AND FUEL SLIP CONFIRMATION, ONE MAIN QUANTITY GAUGE WOULD NOT TEST PROPERLY. I ASKED GATE AGENT, 'DO WE HAVE A MECH HERE?' HER ANSWER, 'YES, WE HAVE OVERNIGHT MAINT. I'LL GET HIM.' HE ARRIVED LITERALLY WITHIN SECONDS. THESE FACTS AS WELL AS HIS PHYSICAL APPEARANCE LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT HE WAS A COMPANY EMPLOYEE. I DID NOT ASK FOR IDENT. 2 GAUGES WERE PULLED OUT AND PUT BACK. THE MAIN QUANTITY GAUGE TESTED NORMALLY. THE CTR TANK WAS EMPTY, AS RELEASED. SINCE THE MECH WAS ASSUMED TO BE COMPANY, NO CALL WAS MADE TO MAINT BEFORE OR AFTER HIS APPEARANCE. IT HAS SINCE OCCURRED TO ME THAT COM BTWN US HAD BEEN SUFFICIENTLY STUNTED THAT ENGLISH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN HIS PRIMARY LANGUAGE. TO SEVERAL QUESTIONS, HIS LIMITED RESPONSE WAS TAKEN TO BE A CLR INDICATION THAT HE NEITHER WANTED NOR EXPECTED TO SEE THE LOG. HE DEPARTED WITH NO FURTHER COM, AND AT NO POINT DID ANYONE INDICATE, NOR DID IT APPEAR, THAT THE SUBSEQUENT PUSHBACK WAS ANYTHING OTHER THAN NORMAL. AS A FOLLOW-UP, I DID ENTER IN THE ACFT LOG ARRIVING BOS THAT THE CTR TANK QUANTITY GAUGE (PREVIOUSLY EMPTY) WAS NOW NOT TESTING PROPERLY. BOTH MAIN TANKS HAD CONTINUED TO FUNCTION NORMALLY. FOR CONTRACT MAINT PROPER PROC REQUIRES CALL TO MAINT PRIOR TO FLT.

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.