Narrative:

On may/xa/01, I flew aircraft X flight abcd from anc to ewr. I again flew (1 week later) this aircraft on may/xb/01 from ewr to anc (flight abcd). Aircraft had the tail tank and tail xfer pumps rendered inoperative due to a fuel leak. A notice has been issued about the inoperative tail tank. My complaint centers on the way in which the paperwork for this problem has been handled. The flight plan release has a statement to the effect that the tail tank and tail xfer pumps are inoperative and that a penalty has been applied -625 mtogw. The statement obviously states that the 625 left mode penalty has been applied but leaves the 2.7% fuel penalty application in question. The fpr makes no reference to the notice issued on aircraft X. Normal procedure is for the fpr to clearly state that the 2.7% fuel penalty has been applied. On flight abcd of may/xa/01, there was no reference to the tail tank being rendered inoperative via an engineering authority in the 5 day history section. No engineering authority/authorized was included or enclosed in the aml. Instead, a generic statement from the manufacturer to the FAA dated 7 july 2000 was enclosed in the aml. The statement made no direct reference to aircraft X. On flight abcd, the same vague statement was made on the fpr with the -625 mtogw limitation. The response from goc was that directions from flight mgrs had prevented them from adding the normal 2.7% penalty statement. The ard made no reference at all to the tail tank being rendered inoperative or the leak that caused the tail tank to be rendered inoperative. This time a separate engineering authority/authorized was enclosed in the aml for aircraft X that explained the problem. The ard is the primary document that the pilot uses to determine the airworthiness of the aircraft. I find it difficult to believe that a major component of the fuel system can be rendered inoperative and no mention of the problem is made on the ard. The signature of the mechanic releasing the aircraft for flight is on the ard, not an engineering authority/authorized that happens to be enclosed in the aml. An notice is not a legitimate document for determining the airworthiness of an aircraft or releasing an aircraft. For whatever reason, normal procedures are being bypassed, and the crew is supposed to assume that the proper penalties have been applied. This type of poor documentation and deviation from standard operation practices puts pilots and mechanics at risk. A NASA report has been filed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD11 PIC RPT ON THE COMPANY PRACTICE OF NOT VERIFYING THE ACFT STATUS ON THE FORM DESIGNATED AND USING OTHER NON STANDARD FORMS THAT ARE CONFUSING TO THE FLC'S, AT EWR AND ANC, AK.

Narrative: ON MAY/XA/01, I FLEW ACFT X FLT ABCD FROM ANC TO EWR. I AGAIN FLEW (1 WK LATER) THIS ACFT ON MAY/XB/01 FROM EWR TO ANC (FLT ABCD). ACFT HAD THE TAIL TANK AND TAIL XFER PUMPS RENDERED INOP DUE TO A FUEL LEAK. A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED ABOUT THE INOP TAIL TANK. MY COMPLAINT CENTERS ON THE WAY IN WHICH THE PAPERWORK FOR THIS PROB HAS BEEN HANDLED. THE FLT PLAN RELEASE HAS A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TAIL TANK AND TAIL XFER PUMPS ARE INOP AND THAT A PENALTY HAS BEEN APPLIED -625 MTOGW. THE STATEMENT OBVIOUSLY STATES THAT THE 625 L MODE PENALTY HAS BEEN APPLIED BUT LEAVES THE 2.7% FUEL PENALTY APPLICATION IN QUESTION. THE FPR MAKES NO REF TO THE NOTICE ISSUED ON ACFT X. NORMAL PROC IS FOR THE FPR TO CLRLY STATE THAT THE 2.7% FUEL PENALTY HAS BEEN APPLIED. ON FLT ABCD OF MAY/XA/01, THERE WAS NO REF TO THE TAIL TANK BEING RENDERED INOP VIA AN ENGINEERING AUTHORITY IN THE 5 DAY HISTORY SECTION. NO ENGINEERING AUTH WAS INCLUDED OR ENCLOSED IN THE AML. INSTEAD, A GENERIC STATEMENT FROM THE MANUFACTURER TO THE FAA DATED 7 JULY 2000 WAS ENCLOSED IN THE AML. THE STATEMENT MADE NO DIRECT REF TO ACFT X. ON FLT ABCD, THE SAME VAGUE STATEMENT WAS MADE ON THE FPR WITH THE -625 MTOGW LIMITATION. THE RESPONSE FROM GOC WAS THAT DIRECTIONS FROM FLT MGRS HAD PREVENTED THEM FROM ADDING THE NORMAL 2.7% PENALTY STATEMENT. THE ARD MADE NO REF AT ALL TO THE TAIL TANK BEING RENDERED INOP OR THE LEAK THAT CAUSED THE TAIL TANK TO BE RENDERED INOP. THIS TIME A SEPARATE ENGINEERING AUTH WAS ENCLOSED IN THE AML FOR ACFT X THAT EXPLAINED THE PROB. THE ARD IS THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT THAT THE PLT USES TO DETERMINE THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE FUEL SYS CAN BE RENDERED INOP AND NO MENTION OF THE PROB IS MADE ON THE ARD. THE SIGNATURE OF THE MECH RELEASING THE ACFT FOR FLT IS ON THE ARD, NOT AN ENGINEERING AUTH THAT HAPPENS TO BE ENCLOSED IN THE AML. AN NOTICE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE DOCUMENT FOR DETERMINING THE AIRWORTHINESS OF AN ACFT OR RELEASING AN ACFT. FOR WHATEVER REASON, NORMAL PROCS ARE BEING BYPASSED, AND THE CREW IS SUPPOSED TO ASSUME THAT THE PROPER PENALTIES HAVE BEEN APPLIED. THIS TYPE OF POOR DOCUMENTATION AND DEV FROM STANDARD OP PRACTICES PUTS PLTS AND MECHS AT RISK. A NASA RPT HAS BEEN FILED.

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.