Narrative:

Aircraft arrived in ZZZ; a scheduled flight. My lead mechanic told me an aircraft was called down for maintenance in ZZZ1 and was needed to fly right back out after loading was finished for an unscheduled flight. Mechanic 'X' was working the turn-around check on the B727 with me. Mechanic 'X' went to the aircraft and transferred fuel out of #1 tank into #2 tank and wrote the item up in the aircraft logbook. I initially conferred with the fueler; mr.'Y'; a contract fuel vendor for our company; to notify him of the #1 fuel quantity gauge being inoperative and to see if he had the computations figured for the gallons to be delivered into #1 tank.fueler mr.'Y' gets the fuel load from our ramp operations directly; aircraft maintenance is not involved with fuel loads. Fueler 'Y' seemed a little confused as to the gallons to be put into #1 tank so I told him to confer with mechanic 'X' who then helped fueler 'Y' fuel the aircraft (mechanic 'X' observed the whole fueling process). I was doing paperwork and preparing the aircraft for departure. This MEL does not have any physical verification of the fuel in the tank; just the fuel truck meter. I asked fueler if he had the correct fuel in the # 1 tank and he said yes and that he got together with mechanic 'X' to put the correct amount in the # 1 tank. I updated the logbook and printed a new airworthiness release and took it to the aircraft. By then everyone (ramp and crew) were waiting on the fuel ticket. I closed the aft stairs while the fueler filled out the fuel ticket. I have worked with both fueler mr.'Y' and mechanic 'X' for many years and have never before had any problems with their competence. I briefly looked over the fuel slip for addition mistakes; signed the ticket at the front of the fuel truck with minimal lighting; trusting that both fueler 'Y' and and mechanic 'X' were correct. I then gave the ticket to the flight engineer who looked it over and approved it. The aircraft departed ZZZ and landed in ZZZ2 with many lighting issues. The engine and APU were run in ZZZ2 to determine the lighting issues and more fuel was burned off the aircraft before the flight to ZZZ3. The aircraft was never fueled in ZZZ2. The pilot should have noticed the unbalanced condition on the flight to ZZZ2. The flight engineer should have seen the mistakes on the fuel ticket in ZZZ and ZZZ2 and balanced the aircraft fuel better. The fueler should have calculated the correct fuel and serviced the # 1 tank correctly. The secondary amt ( mechanic 'X') should have noticed the incorrect calculation of the pounds to gallons since he helped the fueler figure the gallons to be delivered into that tank. The MEL should have had the mechanics do a physical verification for that fuel tank. The fuel calculations should be linked to a computer program that figures weight and balance; taking mechanics out of the picture. The ramp agents calculate weight and balance; this should be their function. There should not be pressure to make flight times by maintenance or anyone else. The fueler should have been better trained. I should have taken the ticket to better lighting where I would have seen the mistake of 770lbs; what should have been 1770 lbs. This was a visual error on my part only. The mistakes lie with #1) the fueler; #2) the mechanic helping the fueler; #3) myself with the improper reading of the fuel ticket; but most of all; #4) the flight engineer who accepts the fuel ticket and calculates the fuel for his flight; #5) the mechanics in ZZZ2 burning fuel with APU and engine; #6) the pilot who didn't notice on takeoff; cruise or landing on the flight to ZZZ2 with the unbalanced condition. This was an unnecessary stressful environment brought on by management to hurry these types of situations. I was never subjected to a drug/alcohol test by management as per policy. I am currently being terminated by my company. No one was hurt and no property was damaged in this case.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Line Mechanic reports on the events surrounding a B727 diverting with numerous warning lights and a wing fuel imbalance condition. Mechanic notes the MEL allows for the deferral of #1 Fuel Tank Gauge; but does not require a dripstick reading be made to verify amount of Fuel in wing tank.

Narrative: Aircraft arrived in ZZZ; a scheduled flight. My Lead Mechanic told me an aircraft was called down for Maintenance in ZZZ1 and was needed to fly right back out after loading was finished for an unscheduled flight. Mechanic 'X' was working the turn-around check on the B727 with me. Mechanic 'X' went to the aircraft and transferred fuel out of #1 tank into #2 tank and wrote the item up in the aircraft Logbook. I initially conferred with the Fueler; Mr.'Y'; a contract fuel vendor for our company; to notify him of the #1 Fuel Quantity Gauge being inoperative and to see if he had the computations figured for the gallons to be delivered into #1 tank.Fueler Mr.'Y' gets the Fuel Load from our Ramp Operations directly; aircraft maintenance is not involved with fuel loads. Fueler 'Y' seemed a little confused as to the gallons to be put into #1 tank so I told him to confer with Mechanic 'X' who then helped Fueler 'Y' fuel the aircraft (Mechanic 'X' observed the whole fueling process). I was doing paperwork and preparing the aircraft for departure. This MEL does not have any physical verification of the fuel in the tank; just the fuel truck meter. I asked Fueler if he had the correct fuel in the # 1 tank and he said yes and that he got together with Mechanic 'X' to put the correct amount in the # 1 tank. I updated the logbook and printed a new Airworthiness Release and took it to the aircraft. By then everyone (ramp and Crew) were waiting on the Fuel Ticket. I closed the aft stairs while the Fueler filled out the fuel ticket. I have worked with both Fueler Mr.'Y' and Mechanic 'X' for many years and have never before had any problems with their competence. I briefly looked over the fuel slip for addition mistakes; signed the ticket at the front of the fuel truck with minimal lighting; trusting that both Fueler 'Y' and and Mechanic 'X' were correct. I then gave the ticket to the Flight Engineer who looked it over and approved it. The aircraft departed ZZZ and landed in ZZZ2 with many lighting issues. The engine and APU were run in ZZZ2 to determine the lighting issues and more fuel was burned off the aircraft before the flight to ZZZ3. The aircraft was never fueled in ZZZ2. The Pilot should have noticed the unbalanced condition on the flight to ZZZ2. The Flight Engineer should have seen the mistakes on the Fuel Ticket in ZZZ and ZZZ2 and balanced the aircraft fuel better. The Fueler should have calculated the correct fuel and serviced the # 1 tank correctly. The secondary AMT ( Mechanic 'X') should have noticed the incorrect calculation of the pounds to gallons since he helped the Fueler figure the gallons to be delivered into that tank. The MEL should have had the Mechanics do a physical verification for that fuel tank. The fuel calculations should be linked to a computer program that figures Weight and Balance; taking Mechanics out of the picture. The Ramp Agents calculate Weight and Balance; this should be their function. There should not be pressure to make flight times by Maintenance or anyone else. The Fueler should have been better trained. I should have taken the ticket to better lighting where I would have seen the mistake of 770lbs; what should have been 1770 lbs. This was a visual error on my part only. The mistakes lie with #1) the Fueler; #2) the Mechanic helping the Fueler; #3) myself with the improper reading of the Fuel Ticket; but most of all; #4) the Flight Engineer who accepts the Fuel Ticket and calculates the fuel for his flight; #5) the Mechanics in ZZZ2 burning fuel with APU and engine; #6) the Pilot who didn't notice on Takeoff; Cruise or Landing on the flight to ZZZ2 with the unbalanced condition. This was an unnecessary stressful environment brought on by Management to hurry these types of situations. I was never subjected to a drug/alcohol test by management as per policy. I am currently being terminated by my company. No one was hurt and no property was damaged in this case.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.