A FOKKER 100 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRESSURE FUELING SYS INOP PER THE MEL. ACFT NOT FUELED PER MEL PROCS.

Narrative

WHILE WAITING FOR THE ACFT TO ARRIVE FROM THE HANGAR; I PULLED UP THE FLT PLAN. DURING THE FLT PLAN REVIEW; I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A DEFERRED MEL ITEM. I RECOGNIZED IT AS ONE I HAD EXPERIENCE WITH BEFORE; WHERE THE FUELER USED THE PRESSURE FUELING SYS DISREGARDING THE NOTE IN F100 MEL 28-05. NOTE: WITH PRESSURE FUELING SYS INOP; L AND R MAIN TANKS ARE FUELED USING OVER-WING FUELING METHOD. CTR TANK CANNOT BE FUELED USING THIS METHOD. BEFORE THE ACFT ARRIVED AT THE GATE; I ASKED MY FO TO CHK AND ENSURE; DURING HIS WALKAROUND; THAT THE PRESSURE FUELING SYS WAS NOT BEING USED BY THE FUELER. THE FO FOUND THAT THE INOP PRESSURE FUELING SYS WAS IN FACT BEING USED AND HE ASKED THE FUELER TO STOP. THE FUELER STATED TO MY FO THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE INOP STATUS OF THE SYS; BUT CONTINUED TO FUEL THE ACFT ANYWAY -- ADDING THAT HE DID IT THIS WAY ALL THE TIME. MY FO PROCEEDED TO ASK THE FUELER IF HE HAD ANY GUIDELINES ON FUELING WITH AN INOP SYS. THE FUELER STATED HE DID NOT AND REITERATED THAT HE DOES IT THIS WAY ALL THE TIME. HAVING STATED HIS AWARENESS OF THE INOP SYS AND THE MEL ITEM; HE CONTINUED TO FUEL THIS ACFT AS HE STATED HE HAD DONE SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST FEW DAYS. IN SPITE OF MY FO'S CONCERNS AND THE REQUEST TO DISCONTINUE FUELING; HE CONTINUED TO FUEL THE ACFT. MY FO RETURNED TO THE COCKPIT TO RELAY WHAT HAD JUST TRANSPIRED. I ASKED MY FO TO RETURN TO THE FUELER AND ONCE AGAIN TELL HIM TO STOP FUELING AND TO COME UP AND TALK TO ME. DURING THAT TIME; I CALLED MAINT AND CONFIRMED THAT THE ACFT SHOULD BE FUELED USING THE OVER-WING METHOD AS DIRECTED IN MEL 28-05. WHEN MY FO AGAIN REQUESTED THE FUELER TO STOP AND SEE ME; THE FUELER STATED 'WHAT IS HE (CAPT) GOING TO DO; FUEL IT HIMSELF?' THE FUELER; AGAIN DISREGARDING THE FO'S REQUEST; CONTINUED TO FUEL THE ACFT -- WHICH BY THIS TIME WAS ALMOST COMPLETE. I SPOKE WITH THE FUELER IN THE COCKPIT AFTER THE ACFT FUELING WAS COMPLETE. I STRONGLY STATED SEVERAL TIMES MY CONCERN FOR HIS LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIMITATIONS AS REQUIRED AND SPECIFIED IN THE MEL. HE SEEMED TO HAVE VERY GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF THE F100 FUELING SYS AND EVEN GOOD INTENTIONS TO GET THE FLT OUT WITHOUT DELAY. I DID NOT; HOWEVER; GET ANY SENSE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPLYING WITH THE MEL. ADDITIONALLY; AND IN MANY WAYS MORE DISCONCERTING THAN HIS DISREGARD OF THE MEL; WAS THAT THERE WAS A COMPLETE LACK OF RESPECT FOR CAPT'S AUTH AS WELL AS THAT OF MY FO. THIS IS HIGHLY UNACCEPTABLE. THE FUELER SEEMED MUCH MORE CONCERNED THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED WITH THE WHOLE DELAY SINCE; AT THE SAME TIME; WE ALSO HAD TO HAVE A LIGHT BULB CHANGED. I WROTE IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK THAT THE PRESSURE FUELING SYS WAS USED; BUT THE OVER-WING METHOD SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED. A MAINT TECHNICIAN ASKED ME WHAT I WAS EXPECTING FOR A BALANCING ENTRY. I STATED THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY. HE EXPLAINED TO ME HOW THE ACFT WAS FUELED WITH THE SYS BEING INOP AND DID NOT SEEM TOO CONCERNED WITH MEL COMPLIANCE. THE MAINT TECHNICIAN ASKED ME TO VOID THE LOGBOOK ENTRY. I SAID THAT I WOULD NOT AND THAT AT THIS POINT; IT WAS OUT OF MY HANDS. A BALANCING ENTRY WAS WRITTEN STATING THAT AN ALTERNATE FUELING METHOD WAS USED. I'M VERY CONCERNED THAT THE FUELER (WHO APPEARED TO BE PERFORMING THIS TASK WHILE TRAINING/TEACHING ANOTHER EMPLOYEE) MAY BE IMPARTING QUESTIONABLE AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS FUELING PROCS.