Narrative:

1 hour 30 mins into a 2 hour 15 min flight the #1 engine low oil pressure light illuminated. The oil pressure gauge on the flight engineer's panel confirmed the low oil pressure. Since the oil pressure was below limits I completed the phase #1 items and shut down the engine. The first officer and engineer completed the appropriate checklists for the engine failure. I notified the senior flight attendant and had the cabin prepared for an emergency landing. ATC was notified after checklists completed. We were being vectored to pxt for the arrival to ewr. We continued on to ewr and landed with no further complications. Upon inspection, mechanics found the engine required 17 quarts of oil to fill it. I called our maintenance control and found out the #1 engine was on an 'oil watch.' this was not in the logbook. I debriefed the flight engineer and found the following facts: 1) the incoming crew advised him they put 2 quarts of oil in the #1 engine. 2) they did not mention any write-ups and none were in the book. The following day after investigating the incident I found the following facts: 1) #1 and #2 oil quantity indicators inoperative (status not in log). They would test when checked, but gave false full indication. 2) inbound crew knew oil level was low but did not brief my crew. They have false impression #1 oil was topped by the 2 quarts of oil they added. 3) maintenance control did not advise flcs of 'oil watch' status of engine. Company pilots appear afraid to put proper write-ups in logbook. Had proper log entries been put in logbook this would not have happened. Crew communication was very poor between inbound/outbound crew. They knew oil was low and failed to inform my crew. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the aircraft was as B727-200 with P&west JT8D engines and before departure 2 quarts of oil were added to #1 engine and later the reporter found out it needed 10 quarts but only 2 quarts were available in the pit oil supply. The reporter said the #1 and #2 engine oil quantity indicators were inoperative and no logbook or deferred item placards were present. The reporter said in 1 hour and 30 mins this engine used 8 quarts of oil and when checked at termination needed 17 quarts to fill a 16 quart tank. The reporter said the oil consumption was 5.33 quarts per hour which puts this engine way beyond the manufacturer's maximum limits of 2 quarts per hour. The reporter stated the maintenance controller was advised and reported the engine was on an 'oil watch' for high oil consumption but no external leaks were found in previous checks. The reporter stated there was no logbook write-ups or oil added numbers in the logbook and that the crew was not advised of the oil quantity indicators being inoperative. The reporter stated most crews seem to go along with this idea of no logbook write-ups which can cause delays and schedule interruptions but the practice is now out of hand. The reporter stated this company has displayed a lack of understanding and utter disregard for aircraft maintenance procedures. The reporter requested and was given the FAA 'hotline' phone number as the reporter's only remedy to alter or correct the maintenance situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727-200 IN CRUISE AT FL290 DECLARED AN EMER AND SHUT DOWN #1 ENG DUE TO LOSS OF OIL PRESSURE AND LOW OIL PRESSURE WARNING LIGHT ILLUMINATED CAUSED BY A HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION ENG.

Narrative: 1 HR 30 MINS INTO A 2 HR 15 MIN FLT THE #1 ENG LOW OIL PRESSURE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. THE OIL PRESSURE GAUGE ON THE FE'S PANEL CONFIRMED THE LOW OIL PRESSURE. SINCE THE OIL PRESSURE WAS BELOW LIMITS I COMPLETED THE PHASE #1 ITEMS AND SHUT DOWN THE ENG. THE FO AND ENGINEER COMPLETED THE APPROPRIATE CHKLISTS FOR THE ENG FAILURE. I NOTIFIED THE SENIOR FLT ATTENDANT AND HAD THE CABIN PREPARED FOR AN EMER LNDG. ATC WAS NOTIFIED AFTER CHKLISTS COMPLETED. WE WERE BEING VECTORED TO PXT FOR THE ARR TO EWR. WE CONTINUED ON TO EWR AND LANDED WITH NO FURTHER COMPLICATIONS. UPON INSPECTION, MECHS FOUND THE ENG REQUIRED 17 QUARTS OF OIL TO FILL IT. I CALLED OUR MAINT CTL AND FOUND OUT THE #1 ENG WAS ON AN 'OIL WATCH.' THIS WAS NOT IN THE LOGBOOK. I DEBRIEFED THE FE AND FOUND THE FOLLOWING FACTS: 1) THE INCOMING CREW ADVISED HIM THEY PUT 2 QUARTS OF OIL IN THE #1 ENG. 2) THEY DID NOT MENTION ANY WRITE-UPS AND NONE WERE IN THE BOOK. THE FOLLOWING DAY AFTER INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT I FOUND THE FOLLOWING FACTS: 1) #1 AND #2 OIL QUANTITY INDICATORS INOP (STATUS NOT IN LOG). THEY WOULD TEST WHEN CHKED, BUT GAVE FALSE FULL INDICATION. 2) INBOUND CREW KNEW OIL LEVEL WAS LOW BUT DID NOT BRIEF MY CREW. THEY HAVE FALSE IMPRESSION #1 OIL WAS TOPPED BY THE 2 QUARTS OF OIL THEY ADDED. 3) MAINT CTL DID NOT ADVISE FLCS OF 'OIL WATCH' STATUS OF ENG. COMPANY PLTS APPEAR AFRAID TO PUT PROPER WRITE-UPS IN LOGBOOK. HAD PROPER LOG ENTRIES BEEN PUT IN LOGBOOK THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. CREW COM WAS VERY POOR BTWN INBOUND/OUTBOUND CREW. THEY KNEW OIL WAS LOW AND FAILED TO INFORM MY CREW. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE ACFT WAS AS B727-200 WITH P&W JT8D ENGS AND BEFORE DEP 2 QUARTS OF OIL WERE ADDED TO #1 ENG AND LATER THE RPTR FOUND OUT IT NEEDED 10 QUARTS BUT ONLY 2 QUARTS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE PIT OIL SUPPLY. THE RPTR SAID THE #1 AND #2 ENG OIL QUANTITY INDICATORS WERE INOP AND NO LOGBOOK OR DEFERRED ITEM PLACARDS WERE PRESENT. THE RPTR SAID IN 1 HR AND 30 MINS THIS ENG USED 8 QUARTS OF OIL AND WHEN CHKED AT TERMINATION NEEDED 17 QUARTS TO FILL A 16 QUART TANK. THE RPTR SAID THE OIL CONSUMPTION WAS 5.33 QUARTS PER HR WHICH PUTS THIS ENG WAY BEYOND THE MANUFACTURER'S MAX LIMITS OF 2 QUARTS PER HR. THE RPTR STATED THE MAINT CTLR WAS ADVISED AND RPTED THE ENG WAS ON AN 'OIL WATCH' FOR HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION BUT NO EXTERNAL LEAKS WERE FOUND IN PREVIOUS CHKS. THE RPTR STATED THERE WAS NO LOGBOOK WRITE-UPS OR OIL ADDED NUMBERS IN THE LOGBOOK AND THAT THE CREW WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE OIL QUANTITY INDICATORS BEING INOP. THE RPTR STATED MOST CREWS SEEM TO GO ALONG WITH THIS IDEA OF NO LOGBOOK WRITE-UPS WHICH CAN CAUSE DELAYS AND SCHEDULE INTERRUPTIONS BUT THE PRACTICE IS NOW OUT OF HAND. THE RPTR STATED THIS COMPANY HAS DISPLAYED A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND UTTER DISREGARD FOR ACFT MAINT PROCS. THE RPTR REQUESTED AND WAS GIVEN THE FAA 'HOTLINE' PHONE NUMBER AS THE RPTR'S ONLY REMEDY TO ALTER OR CORRECT THE MAINT SIT.

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.