37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 747335 |
Time | |
Date | 200707 |
Local Time Of Day | 1201 To 1800 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
State Reference | US |
Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
Environment | |
Flight Conditions | VMC |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
Make Model Name | B757-200 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | ground : preflight ground : parked |
Flight Plan | IFR |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | company : air carrier |
Function | flight crew : captain oversight : pic |
ASRS Report | 747335 |
Events | |
Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : less severe maintenance problem : improper maintenance non adherence : company policies non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure |
Independent Detector | other flight crewa |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Supplementary | |
Problem Areas | Aircraft Company |
Primary Problem | Company |
Narrative:
When I pulled up papers for preflight planning I saw aircraft was dispatched with a small fuel leak on the left engine. Write-up said it was found yesterday and 'ok to continue with leak less than 3 drops per min...fuel pump must be changed within 24 hours.' on preflight I saw extensive leak. I timed it and came up with 24 drops per min. I reported this to maintenance; and refused the aircraft in that condition as observed leak well exceeded allowed leak. They found a new airplane for us and when I tried to enter the actual refusal; it would not take; although the actual mrm write-up of the 24 dpm leak was accepted. Knowing our flight operations manual calls for us to log captain refusals I contacted my dispatcher who patched me through to flight duty manager. He promised to get the correct information entered into the electronic record for me; and I went off to fly the new airplane. Later I learned from dispatch they just tried to give the same fuel leak to the next crew. When the dispatcher got whole story to that crew and the second captain refused it; then it was scheduled OTS for 4 hours to fix. Was it fixed before launch? Why would maintenance even think of launching an airplane dripping 24 drops per min fuel? There is something seriously the matter with our communications at this company. Maintenance honestly believes it is the 'captain's attitude' which is the problem; not a desire to do the right and legal thing; and oblivious to the fact that engine fuel leaks are seriously not good items to have present; particularly before even launching. Why does an airplane have to be refused by multiple capts to get maintenance to look at it anyway? Supplemental information from acn 747336: no maintenance work was done. Maintenance is now sending the airplane out again; with a known fuel leak of 24 dpm; well in excess of the allowed deferral of 3 dpm. However all maintenance history (my write-up and call to dispatch/maintenance/flight duty manager which references the actual observed drip rate) has been removed from the log. As I write; this aircraft is being sent out again this morning. Once again maintenance and air carrier operations just lie to pilots; dispatch; and maybe even flight duty manager; falsify logbooks; and get away with it because our system has no follow up to get the job done.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B757-200 PILOT REPORTS AN ACFT GROUNDED FOR AN OUT OF LIMITS ENG FUEL PUMP LEAK WAS RELEASED AND REFUSED BY ANOTHER CREW.
Narrative: WHEN I PULLED UP PAPERS FOR PREFLT PLANNING I SAW ACFT WAS DISPATCHED WITH A SMALL FUEL LEAK ON THE L ENG. WRITE-UP SAID IT WAS FOUND YESTERDAY AND 'OK TO CONTINUE WITH LEAK LESS THAN 3 DROPS PER MIN...FUEL PUMP MUST BE CHANGED WITHIN 24 HRS.' ON PREFLT I SAW EXTENSIVE LEAK. I TIMED IT AND CAME UP WITH 24 DROPS PER MIN. I RPTED THIS TO MAINT; AND REFUSED THE ACFT IN THAT CONDITION AS OBSERVED LEAK WELL EXCEEDED ALLOWED LEAK. THEY FOUND A NEW AIRPLANE FOR US AND WHEN I TRIED TO ENTER THE ACTUAL REFUSAL; IT WOULD NOT TAKE; ALTHOUGH THE ACTUAL MRM WRITE-UP OF THE 24 DPM LEAK WAS ACCEPTED. KNOWING OUR FLT OPS MANUAL CALLS FOR US TO LOG CAPT REFUSALS I CONTACTED MY DISPATCHER WHO PATCHED ME THROUGH TO FLT DUTY MGR. HE PROMISED TO GET THE CORRECT INFO ENTERED INTO THE ELECTRONIC RECORD FOR ME; AND I WENT OFF TO FLY THE NEW AIRPLANE. LATER I LEARNED FROM DISPATCH THEY JUST TRIED TO GIVE THE SAME FUEL LEAK TO THE NEXT CREW. WHEN THE DISPATCHER GOT WHOLE STORY TO THAT CREW AND THE SECOND CAPT REFUSED IT; THEN IT WAS SCHEDULED OTS FOR 4 HRS TO FIX. WAS IT FIXED BEFORE LAUNCH? WHY WOULD MAINT EVEN THINK OF LAUNCHING AN AIRPLANE DRIPPING 24 DROPS PER MIN FUEL? THERE IS SOMETHING SERIOUSLY THE MATTER WITH OUR COMS AT THIS COMPANY. MAINT HONESTLY BELIEVES IT IS THE 'CAPT'S ATTITUDE' WHICH IS THE PROB; NOT A DESIRE TO DO THE RIGHT AND LEGAL THING; AND OBLIVIOUS TO THE FACT THAT ENG FUEL LEAKS ARE SERIOUSLY NOT GOOD ITEMS TO HAVE PRESENT; PARTICULARLY BEFORE EVEN LAUNCHING. WHY DOES AN AIRPLANE HAVE TO BE REFUSED BY MULTIPLE CAPTS TO GET MAINT TO LOOK AT IT ANYWAY? SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 747336: NO MAINT WORK WAS DONE. MAINT IS NOW SENDING THE AIRPLANE OUT AGAIN; WITH A KNOWN FUEL LEAK OF 24 DPM; WELL IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWED DEFERRAL OF 3 DPM. HOWEVER ALL MAINT HISTORY (MY WRITE-UP AND CALL TO DISPATCH/MAINT/FLT DUTY MGR WHICH REFS THE ACTUAL OBSERVED DRIP RATE) HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE LOG. AS I WRITE; THIS ACFT IS BEING SENT OUT AGAIN THIS MORNING. ONCE AGAIN MAINT AND ACR OPS JUST LIE TO PLTS; DISPATCH; AND MAYBE EVEN FLT DUTY MGR; FALSIFY LOGBOOKS; AND GET AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE OUR SYS HAS NO FOLLOW UP TO GET THE JOB DONE.
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.