Narrative:

During preflight the crew discovered a previous write up for the right firewall fuel valve annunciator remaining illuminated with the 'T-handle' pull closed. This indicates the valve was not in agreement with the selected position; indicating that the valve was not closed. Upon the preflight test the same problem was found. Maintenance control was notified and the problem was corrected. The crew departed and after landing at the next station the valve was tested again and found to be working properly. The crew then departed that station and upon landing the valve was tested again and found to be not working. Maintenance control was again notified and maintenance came to the aircraft and corrected the problem. The crew departed and upon landing at the destination the valve was tested again and found to be faulting again. Maintenance was again notified and upon arrival the problem was again corrected. The crew then departed and upon landing at the next station the valve was again tested and found to be faulted for the third time in four legs. Maintenance was notified of the issue as the aircraft was a ron.when the captain spoke with maintenance control; after the second leg; he was advised that the valve was sticking and the mechanic was going to 'unstick it'. The controller also said a valve change was added to the scheduled maintenance of the aircraft for that night due to the problem re-occurring. When maintenance was contacted the second time and advised of the same problem the captain was asked why the valve was tested. He explained that the firewall fuel valve is an essential part of the fire protection system and aircraft's safety and due to the prior problems; he wanted to ensure the valve was not stuck open again. The captain then fearing this may be escalated at the morning meeting; being that this was the second time the flight was delayed in as many legs for the same problem; called the chief pilot to inform him of the situation. The chief pilot also questioned why the captain was testing the valve as it is listed on the checklist as 'first flight of the day'. The captain advised he checked it as a precaution due the importance of the part; the past history; the safety concerned with it; combined with what maintenance control had said. The captain was then told it is against the company policy to test this every flight as it is only listed as 'first flight of the day'. The captain explained he felt it was a safety issue if this part did not work. The chief pilot then explained the fuel could be cut off with the condition lever and he didn't see the safety aspect if the valve did not close. He did however admit that if the captain knew of a problem he should advise maintenance; but if he just felt there may be an issue to wait until he is at base then test it to see if it is working. The captain replied that with the past record of the part he felt it was essential it was tested until it was found to work as it should; for the passenger's and crew's safety.the captain was advised to complete an incident report and one last time and told that there was no safety issue with the valve not working. The captain advised the chief pilot he would file an incident report as well as an as soon as possible and thanked him for his time. Several minutes later the dispatch office called the captain to address the issue. When the captain advised the dispatch office of the prior problem and his talk with the chief pilot and maintenance; the dispatch office admitted that he too would be checking the valve due to its importance and understood the captain's actions. He then explained that the valve is an important part of the fire protection system. The dispatch office did not find anything wrong with the way the crew acted. With all the events of the night the crew completed all scheduled flights without any incidents.operating as a part 121 airline safety should be the number one priority. In the discussion with maintenance and the chief pilot the captain felt as though he was being lectured for testing for the safe operation of the aircraft and he also felt they were both upset that he had tested the valve again in fear of it not working properly. If this was a part that is normally not tested by the flight crew; then this would be called for; but being this is a normal item to be tested and is listed on the before starting engine checklist; the captain did not see an issue with this. Any time there is a discrepancy or a thought of one; the crew feels it is safest to have maintenance check for a problem or test for a problem before the problem leads to other issues.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BE1900 Captain reported discovering that the Right Firewall Fuel Valve ded not close when the T-handle was pulled. Maintenance was called and the problem corrected. The problem repeated several times during the day and was corrected each time by Maintenance (tapping on the valve). The Captain was chastised by the Chief Pilot for testing the valve and delaying flights for maintenance.

Narrative: During preflight the crew discovered a previous write up for the R Firewall Fuel Valve annunciator remaining illuminated with the 'T-handle' pull closed. This indicates the valve was not in agreement with the selected position; indicating that the valve was not closed. Upon the preflight test the same problem was found. Maintenance Control was notified and the problem was corrected. The crew departed and after landing at the next station the valve was tested again and found to be working properly. The crew then departed that station and upon landing the valve was tested again and found to be not working. Maintenance Control was again notified and Maintenance came to the aircraft and corrected the problem. The crew departed and upon landing at the destination the valve was tested again and found to be faulting again. Maintenance was again notified and upon arrival the problem was again corrected. The crew then departed and upon landing at the next station the valve was again tested and found to be faulted for the third time in four legs. Maintenance was notified of the issue as the aircraft was a RON.When the Captain spoke with Maintenance Control; after the second leg; he was advised that the valve was sticking and the mechanic was going to 'unstick it'. The controller also said a valve change was added to the scheduled maintenance of the aircraft for that night due to the problem re-occurring. When Maintenance was contacted the second time and advised of the same problem the Captain was asked why the valve was tested. He explained that the firewall fuel valve is an essential part of the fire protection system and aircraft's safety and due to the prior problems; he wanted to ensure the valve was not stuck open again. The Captain then fearing this may be escalated at the morning meeting; being that this was the second time the flight was delayed in as many legs for the same problem; called the Chief Pilot to inform him of the situation. The Chief Pilot also questioned why the Captain was testing the valve as it is listed on the checklist as 'first flight of the day'. The Captain advised he checked it as a precaution due the importance of the part; the past history; the safety concerned with it; combined with what Maintenance Control had said. The Captain was then told it is against the company policy to test this every flight as it is only listed as 'first flight of the day'. The Captain explained he felt it was a safety issue if this part did not work. The Chief Pilot then explained the fuel could be cut off with the condition lever and he didn't see the safety aspect if the valve did not close. He did however admit that if the Captain knew of a problem he should advise maintenance; but if he just felt there may be an issue to wait until he is at base then test it to see if it is working. The Captain replied that with the past record of the part he felt it was essential it was tested until it was found to work as it should; for the passenger's and crew's safety.The Captain was advised to complete an incident report and one last time and told that there was no safety issue with the valve not working. The Captain advised the Chief Pilot he would file an incident report as well as an ASAP and thanked him for his time. Several minutes later the Dispatch Office called the Captain to address the issue. When the Captain advised the Dispatch Office of the prior problem and his talk with the Chief Pilot and Maintenance; the Dispatch Office admitted that he too would be checking the valve due to its importance and understood the Captain's actions. He then explained that the valve is an important part of the fire protection system. The Dispatch Office did not find anything wrong with the way the crew acted. With all the events of the night the crew completed all scheduled flights without any incidents.Operating as a part 121 airline safety should be the number one priority. In the discussion with Maintenance and the Chief Pilot the Captain felt as though he was being lectured for testing for the safe operation of the aircraft and he also felt they were both upset that he had tested the valve again in fear of it not working properly. If this was a part that is normally not tested by the flight crew; then this would be called for; but being this is a normal item to be tested and is listed on the before starting engine checklist; the Captain did not see an issue with this. Any time there is a discrepancy or a thought of one; the crew feels it is safest to have Maintenance check for a problem or test for a problem before the problem leads to other issues.

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.