Narrative:

During preflight we found mechanics checking a previously existing fuel leak from the left wing. They determined that the leak; which was previously classified as 'light'; should now be reclassified as 'heavy'. They then returned the logbook to me with no new entries. The previous entry was in a full logbook found in the [onboard] closet. I insisted that the new condition and the leak check should be recorded in the logbook. I was assured repeatedly that the aircraft was airworthy and did not need further documentation. Upon arrival in ZZZ1; we found more fuel leaking and I made a logbook entry and a request to have the leak evaluated by a mechanic. After an extensive delay; I was told that the aircraft should not have been flown since the leak was in a 'closed' area and was now classified as 'heavy'. Later that night I was told that it was not a problem and that we would be requested to fly the airplane to ZZZ2. Even later; I was told that the problem would not ground the airplane if it could be again reclassified as 'light'. A contract mechanic examined the airplane and determined the leak to be 'light'. We were dispatched to ZZZ on a maintenance ferry. There is a big question about whether the flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 was legal given the classification of 'heavy' fuel leakage in a closed compartment. This leak had existed for several weeks with no corrective action taken. A lack of understanding of the documentation led various maintenance personnel to make contradictory decisions about the proper way to deal with the problem. Maintenance control supervisors told me that the aircraft was airworthy; but I realized later that it was probably not legal. I had to insist that some documentation be made in the logbook. I was told repeatedly not to worry about it; since there was an entry in the maintenance computer. I do not find that adequate. In my opinion; any defect or damage to the aircraft should be noted by MEL or cdl so that the flight crew can verify the problem has been properly addressed. Any damage or inoperative equipment should have an entry in the onboard logbook. A logbook sticker showing the problem; the MEL approval; and the logbook page is a great way to provide all the necessary information. Without that; it is very difficult to find out any information about existing problems. Fuel leaks will have to be fixed eventually. It is false economy; and a compromise to safety; to continue flying an aircraft for weeks with an existing fuel leak. The ability to continue flying with a leak should only be used when absolutely necessary to get the plane to a maintenance station. It should only be done with the agreement of both pilots. I feel that I should have the right to refuse an airplane with a fuel leak. Especially when maintenance cannot even decide if it is legal to fly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Pilot reported a A319 was finally taken out of service and flown as a Maintenance Ferry back to their Maintenance Base. A spreading fuel leak from a weep hole in the left wing lower skin had been going on for weeks without any corrective Maintenance actions taken.

Narrative: During preflight we found mechanics checking a previously existing fuel leak from the left wing. They determined that the leak; which was previously classified as 'light'; should now be reclassified as 'heavy'. They then returned the Logbook to me with no new entries. The previous entry was in a full Logbook found in the [onboard] closet. I insisted that the new condition and the Leak Check should be recorded in the Logbook. I was assured repeatedly that the aircraft was airworthy and did not need further documentation. Upon arrival in ZZZ1; we found more fuel leaking and I made a Logbook entry and a request to have the leak evaluated by a Mechanic. After an extensive delay; I was told that the aircraft should not have been flown since the leak was in a 'closed' area and was now classified as 'heavy'. Later that night I was told that it was not a problem and that we would be requested to fly the airplane to ZZZ2. Even later; I was told that the problem would not ground the airplane if it could be again reclassified as 'light'. A Contract Mechanic examined the airplane and determined the leak to be 'light'. We were dispatched to ZZZ on a Maintenance Ferry. There is a big question about whether the flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1 was legal given the classification of 'heavy' fuel leakage in a closed compartment. This leak had existed for several weeks with no Corrective Action taken. A lack of understanding of the documentation led various Maintenance personnel to make contradictory decisions about the proper way to deal with the problem. Maintenance Control Supervisors told me that the aircraft was airworthy; but I realized later that it was probably not legal. I had to insist that some documentation be made in the Logbook. I was told repeatedly not to worry about it; since there was an entry in the Maintenance computer. I do not find that adequate. In my opinion; any defect or damage to the aircraft should be noted by MEL or CDL so that the flight crew can verify the problem has been properly addressed. Any damage or inoperative equipment should have an entry in the onboard Logbook. A Logbook sticker showing the problem; the MEL approval; and the Logbook page is a great way to provide all the necessary information. Without that; it is very difficult to find out any information about existing problems. Fuel leaks will have to be fixed eventually. It is false economy; and a compromise to safety; to continue flying an aircraft for weeks with an existing fuel leak. The ability to continue flying with a leak should only be used when absolutely necessary to get the plane to a Maintenance station. It should only be done with the agreement of both pilots. I feel that I should have the right to refuse an airplane with a fuel leak. Especially when Maintenance cannot even decide if it is legal to fly.

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.