Narrative:

The day started by picking up an aircraft that had 5 dmi's. Most of the items were cosmetic in nature, but 1 item required a follow-up maintenance action after each flight. This item, which was an inoperative fueling panel gauge, also required the placarding of another system (the volumetric top-off system, vto) which in turn had its own follow-up item, which in this case was identical to that of the inoperative panel gauge. As I flipped through the logbook, I noticed that there were no maintenance signoffs in the logbook as to the completion of the follow-up actions. This action was very simple, and it basically involved the mechanic to monitor the fueling from the flight engineer panel and communicate to the fuelers when they got to the appropriate level. I found this unusual since 3 or 4 crews have flown this aircraft since the write-up was made, and none had caught this problem. I asked the captain about this, and he was of the opinion that the fuel slip, which indicates the actual fuel in pounds in each tank (normally read from the fueling panel gauges, but in this case from the gauges on the flight engineer panel) was sufficient indication that the follow up maintenance action was performed. As there were no maintenance entries in the logbook pertaining to this action (covering about 5-6 flts), his assumption seemed entirely reasonable. There was also another slight problem with the logbook. The MEL for the inoperative panel fuel gauge also required that the volumetric top-off system be placarded inoperative, which was not done in this case. Again, I talked it over with the captain, and he and I both agreed that there was no volumetric top-off system with the new digital fuel gauges, and hence, no requirement to MEL the system. We completed our leg, and at the next station, as the mechanic was preparing to help with fueling the aircraft, I asked him explicitly about the requirement for a logbook signoff for any MEL item that required a follow-up action. He confirmed the captain's opinion that none was required, and that the fuel slip was sufficient. I also asked him about the volumetric top-off system remark in the MEL book, and he agreed that there was no volumetric top-off system with the digital gauges (which our whole fleet had converted to a few yrs ago). When I got back to base, I discovered that the only exception for not entering a follow-up action to the maintenance logbook was the case of an inoperative cockpit fuel gauge. In this case, the mechanic fills out an inoperative fuel gauge fuel slip, and signs it, thus confirming the fuel on board, and the completion of the follow-up procedure. The inoperative panel gauge does not hold this exemption, and thus according to our fom, we needed a signoff after every leg. Another thing I learned is that not everyone is on the same page regarding what is a signoff and what is not. Some folks I talked to seemed to think that the mechanic filling out the fuel slip was good enough, but the regulations (and our fom) clearly state that a logbook entry is required. Obviously in this case, when I had a question, I should have dug out the fom and researched the proper way of doing things. But the captain seemed so darned reasonable, and in fact, the mechanic at the downline station confirmed this opinion .the absence of the other crews not catching the problem only reinforced our erroneous opinion.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH MEL SPECIAL PROCS FOR FUELING PANEL INDICATOR INOP NOT ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: THE DAY STARTED BY PICKING UP AN ACFT THAT HAD 5 DMI'S. MOST OF THE ITEMS WERE COSMETIC IN NATURE, BUT 1 ITEM REQUIRED A FOLLOW-UP MAINT ACTION AFTER EACH FLT. THIS ITEM, WHICH WAS AN INOP FUELING PANEL GAUGE, ALSO REQUIRED THE PLACARDING OF ANOTHER SYS (THE VOLUMETRIC TOP-OFF SYS, VTO) WHICH IN TURN HAD ITS OWN FOLLOW-UP ITEM, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE INOP PANEL GAUGE. AS I FLIPPED THROUGH THE LOGBOOK, I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE NO MAINT SIGNOFFS IN THE LOGBOOK AS TO THE COMPLETION OF THE FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS. THIS ACTION WAS VERY SIMPLE, AND IT BASICALLY INVOLVED THE MECH TO MONITOR THE FUELING FROM THE FE PANEL AND COMMUNICATE TO THE FUELERS WHEN THEY GOT TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL. I FOUND THIS UNUSUAL SINCE 3 OR 4 CREWS HAVE FLOWN THIS ACFT SINCE THE WRITE-UP WAS MADE, AND NONE HAD CAUGHT THIS PROB. I ASKED THE CAPT ABOUT THIS, AND HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE FUEL SLIP, WHICH INDICATES THE ACTUAL FUEL IN LBS IN EACH TANK (NORMALLY READ FROM THE FUELING PANEL GAUGES, BUT IN THIS CASE FROM THE GAUGES ON THE FE PANEL) WAS SUFFICIENT INDICATION THAT THE FOLLOW UP MAINT ACTION WAS PERFORMED. AS THERE WERE NO MAINT ENTRIES IN THE LOGBOOK PERTAINING TO THIS ACTION (COVERING ABOUT 5-6 FLTS), HIS ASSUMPTION SEEMED ENTIRELY REASONABLE. THERE WAS ALSO ANOTHER SLIGHT PROB WITH THE LOGBOOK. THE MEL FOR THE INOP PANEL FUEL GAUGE ALSO REQUIRED THAT THE VOLUMETRIC TOP-OFF SYS BE PLACARDED INOP, WHICH WAS NOT DONE IN THIS CASE. AGAIN, I TALKED IT OVER WITH THE CAPT, AND HE AND I BOTH AGREED THAT THERE WAS NO VOLUMETRIC TOP-OFF SYS WITH THE NEW DIGITAL FUEL GAUGES, AND HENCE, NO REQUIREMENT TO MEL THE SYS. WE COMPLETED OUR LEG, AND AT THE NEXT STATION, AS THE MECH WAS PREPARING TO HELP WITH FUELING THE ACFT, I ASKED HIM EXPLICITLY ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A LOGBOOK SIGNOFF FOR ANY MEL ITEM THAT REQUIRED A FOLLOW-UP ACTION. HE CONFIRMED THE CAPT'S OPINION THAT NONE WAS REQUIRED, AND THAT THE FUEL SLIP WAS SUFFICIENT. I ALSO ASKED HIM ABOUT THE VOLUMETRIC TOP-OFF SYS REMARK IN THE MEL BOOK, AND HE AGREED THAT THERE WAS NO VOLUMETRIC TOP-OFF SYS WITH THE DIGITAL GAUGES (WHICH OUR WHOLE FLEET HAD CONVERTED TO A FEW YRS AGO). WHEN I GOT BACK TO BASE, I DISCOVERED THAT THE ONLY EXCEPTION FOR NOT ENTERING A FOLLOW-UP ACTION TO THE MAINT LOGBOOK WAS THE CASE OF AN INOP COCKPIT FUEL GAUGE. IN THIS CASE, THE MECH FILLS OUT AN INOP FUEL GAUGE FUEL SLIP, AND SIGNS IT, THUS CONFIRMING THE FUEL ON BOARD, AND THE COMPLETION OF THE FOLLOW-UP PROC. THE INOP PANEL GAUGE DOES NOT HOLD THIS EXEMPTION, AND THUS ACCORDING TO OUR FOM, WE NEEDED A SIGNOFF AFTER EVERY LEG. ANOTHER THING I LEARNED IS THAT NOT EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE REGARDING WHAT IS A SIGNOFF AND WHAT IS NOT. SOME FOLKS I TALKED TO SEEMED TO THINK THAT THE MECH FILLING OUT THE FUEL SLIP WAS GOOD ENOUGH, BUT THE REGS (AND OUR FOM) CLRLY STATE THAT A LOGBOOK ENTRY IS REQUIRED. OBVIOUSLY IN THIS CASE, WHEN I HAD A QUESTION, I SHOULD HAVE DUG OUT THE FOM AND RESEARCHED THE PROPER WAY OF DOING THINGS. BUT THE CAPT SEEMED SO DARNED REASONABLE, AND IN FACT, THE MECH AT THE DOWNLINE STATION CONFIRMED THIS OPINION .THE ABSENCE OF THE OTHER CREWS NOT CATCHING THE PROB ONLY REINFORCED OUR ERRONEOUS OPINION.

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.