AN MD11 PIC RPT ON THE COMPANY PRACTICE OF NOT VERIFYING THE ACFT STATUS ON THE FORM DESIGNATED AND USING OTHER NON STANDARD FORMS THAT ARE CONFUSING TO THE FLC'S; AT EWR AND ANC; AK.

Narrative

ON MAY/XA/01; I FLEW ACFT X FLT ABCD FROM ANC TO EWR. I AGAIN FLEW (1 WK LATER) THIS ACFT ON MAY/XB/01 FROM EWR TO ANC (FLT ABCD). ACFT HAD THE TAIL TANK AND TAIL XFER PUMPS RENDERED INOP DUE TO A FUEL LEAK. A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED ABOUT THE INOP TAIL TANK. MY COMPLAINT CENTERS ON THE WAY IN WHICH THE PAPERWORK FOR THIS PROB HAS BEEN HANDLED. THE FLT PLAN RELEASE HAS A STATEMENT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE TAIL TANK AND TAIL XFER PUMPS ARE INOP AND THAT A PENALTY HAS BEEN APPLIED -625 MTOGW. THE STATEMENT OBVIOUSLY STATES THAT THE 625 L MODE PENALTY HAS BEEN APPLIED BUT LEAVES THE 2.7% FUEL PENALTY APPLICATION IN QUESTION. THE FPR MAKES NO REF TO THE NOTICE ISSUED ON ACFT X. NORMAL PROC IS FOR THE FPR TO CLRLY STATE THAT THE 2.7% FUEL PENALTY HAS BEEN APPLIED. ON FLT ABCD OF MAY/XA/01; THERE WAS NO REF TO THE TAIL TANK BEING RENDERED INOP VIA AN ENGINEERING AUTHORITY IN THE 5 DAY HISTORY SECTION. NO ENGINEERING AUTH WAS INCLUDED OR ENCLOSED IN THE AML. INSTEAD; A GENERIC STATEMENT FROM THE MANUFACTURER TO THE FAA DATED 7 JULY 2000 WAS ENCLOSED IN THE AML. THE STATEMENT MADE NO DIRECT REF TO ACFT X. ON FLT ABCD; THE SAME VAGUE STATEMENT WAS MADE ON THE FPR WITH THE -625 MTOGW LIMITATION. THE RESPONSE FROM [OPERATIONS] WAS THAT DIRECTIONS FROM FLT MGRS HAD PREVENTED THEM FROM ADDING THE NORMAL 2.7% PENALTY STATEMENT. THE ARD MADE NO REF AT ALL TO THE TAIL TANK BEING RENDERED INOP OR THE LEAK THAT CAUSED THE TAIL TANK TO BE RENDERED INOP. THIS TIME A SEPARATE ENGINEERING AUTH WAS ENCLOSED IN THE AML FOR ACFT X THAT EXPLAINED THE PROB. THE ARD IS THE PRIMARY DOCUMENT THAT THE PLT USES TO DETERMINE THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT. I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THE FUEL SYS CAN BE RENDERED INOP AND NO MENTION OF THE PROB IS MADE ON THE ARD. THE SIGNATURE OF THE MECH RELEASING THE ACFT FOR FLT IS ON THE ARD; NOT AN ENGINEERING AUTH THAT HAPPENS TO BE ENCLOSED IN THE AML. AN NOTICE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE DOCUMENT FOR DETERMINING THE AIRWORTHINESS OF AN ACFT OR RELEASING AN ACFT. FOR WHATEVER REASON; NORMAL PROCS ARE BEING BYPASSED; AND THE CREW IS SUPPOSED TO ASSUME THAT THE PROPER PENALTIES HAVE BEEN APPLIED. THIS TYPE OF POOR DOCUMENTATION AND DEV FROM STANDARD OP PRACTICES PUTS PLTS AND MECHS AT RISK. A NASA RPT HAS BEEN FILED.