Narrative:

After the completion of fueling; the fuel load was out of parameters; on all 3 tanks. Maximum is 225 gallons and the error was 500 plus per tank from the tank quantity and the drip stick! Although the total in the tanks agreed with the total tank gauge reading on the fuel truck; I had no idea what the true fuel load was in the tank remaining from the prior flight before the fueling process. Since the MD80 fuel situation is not being addressed aggressively (from my viewpoint) by the company and the corrective measures are painfully slow; I really don't know the accuracy of the tank quantities. Additionally; the MEL is specific in regards to inoperative or malfunctioning gauges and drip stick. The plane was clearly not in compliance with the MEL for dispatch. While I was making a determination on how to solve the immediate problem; the APU was running. I attempted to get ground air but to no avail. Over a 1.5 hour period; the fuel gauge did not show any decrease even though the APU had burned approximately 500 pounds or so. My consternation is with an individual from I believe was calling from operations. They stated that I of course made the final decision on this issue and he just wanted to share his opinion. He stated that if the information was not in the log book; then I could technically depart if I was satisfied with the fueling. He also stated that it seemed curious that ZZZ had two planes that were grounded at the same time due to fuel issues and felt this was highly irregular. I stated that I would consider his opinion; but I needed to deliberate on this issue. I subsequently refused the aircraft for revenue. The facts are this. If I had taken the aircraft; it would be a gross violation of company policy; FARS; MEL; and common sense. Additionally; the fuel issue on the MD80 is now reaching a crescendo and I fear that an incident or accident will finally get all of the departments associated with this problem together. The fuel slip for each flight is a good first step; but it will not solve the problem. Updated remark since I originally composed the report: I realize that the vp of flight has now stated a change in the MD80 fuel issue; why was it done so painfully slow and it took the union to get it kicked up a notch? I applaud the changes announced; but will it be enough?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 PLT RPTS INACCURATE FUEL QTY INDICATIONS ON HIS ACFT AND OTHER MD80'S. RPTR FEELS ACR IS PRESSURING CREWS TO FLY WITH A KNOWN PROBLEM.

Narrative: AFTER THE COMPLETION OF FUELING; THE FUEL LOAD WAS OUT OF PARAMETERS; ON ALL 3 TANKS. MAX IS 225 GALLONS AND THE ERROR WAS 500 PLUS PER TANK FROM THE TANK QUANTITY AND THE DRIP STICK! ALTHOUGH THE TOTAL IN THE TANKS AGREED WITH THE TOTAL TANK GAUGE READING ON THE FUEL TRUCK; I HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE TRUE FUEL LOAD WAS IN THE TANK REMAINING FROM THE PRIOR FLT BEFORE THE FUELING PROCESS. SINCE THE MD80 FUEL SITUATION IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED AGGRESSIVELY (FROM MY VIEWPOINT) BY THE COMPANY AND THE CORRECTIVE MEASURES ARE PAINFULLY SLOW; I REALLY DON'T KNOW THE ACCURACY OF THE TANK QUANTITIES. ADDITIONALLY; THE MEL IS SPECIFIC IN REGARDS TO INOPERATIVE OR MALFUNCTIONING GAUGES AND DRIP STICK. THE PLANE WAS CLEARLY NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MEL FOR DISPATCH. WHILE I WAS MAKING A DETERMINATION ON HOW TO SOLVE THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM; THE APU WAS RUNNING. I ATTEMPTED TO GET GROUND AIR BUT TO NO AVAIL. OVER A 1.5 HOUR PERIOD; THE FUEL GAUGE DID NOT SHOW ANY DECREASE EVEN THOUGH THE APU HAD BURNED APPROXIMATELY 500 LBS OR SO. MY CONSTERNATION IS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL FROM I BELIEVE WAS CALLING FROM OPERATIONS. THEY STATED THAT I OF COURSE MADE THE FINAL DECISION ON THIS ISSUE AND HE JUST WANTED TO SHARE HIS OPINION. HE STATED THAT IF THE INFO WAS NOT IN THE LOG BOOK; THEN I COULD TECHNICALLY DEPART IF I WAS SATISFIED WITH THE FUELING. HE ALSO STATED THAT IT SEEMED CURIOUS THAT ZZZ HAD TWO PLANES THAT WERE GROUNDED AT THE SAME TIME DUE TO FUEL ISSUES AND FELT THIS WAS HIGHLY IRREGULAR. I STATED THAT I WOULD CONSIDER HIS OPINION; BUT I NEEDED TO DELIBERATE ON THIS ISSUE. I SUBSEQUENTLY REFUSED THE ACFT FOR REVENUE. THE FACTS ARE THIS. IF I HAD TAKEN THE ACFT; IT WOULD BE A GROSS VIOLATION OF COMPANY POLICY; FARS; MEL; AND COMMON SENSE. ADDITIONALLY; THE FUEL ISSUE ON THE MD80 IS NOW REACHING A CRESCENDO AND I FEAR THAT AN INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT WILL FINALLY GET ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROBLEM TOGETHER. THE FUEL SLIP FOR EACH FLT IS A GOOD FIRST STEP; BUT IT WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. UPDATED REMARK SINCE I ORIGINALLY COMPOSED THE RPT: I REALIZE THAT THE VP OF FLT HAS NOW STATED A CHANGE IN THE MD80 FUEL ISSUE; WHY WAS IT DONE SO PAINFULLY SLOW AND IT TOOK THE UNION TO GET IT KICKED UP A NOTCH? I APPLAUD THE CHANGES ANNOUNCED; BUT WILL IT BE ENOUGH?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.