A FUEL LEAK WAS DISCOVERED ON AN MD80 THAT WAS PARKED AT THE GATE DURING REFUELING. FLT CREW REFUSED ACFT AND IT WAS TAKEN OUT OF SVC.

Narrative

WHILE SITTING AT THE GATE IN ZZZ; THE FO INFORMED ME THAT THE ACFT REFUELER HAD ASKED ONE OF THE GND PERSONNEL TO INFORM US THAT FUEL WAS LEAKING OUT OF THE REFUELING MANIFOLD WHILE SHE WAS REFUELING. WE ENTERED THIS PROB INTO THE MAINT LOG AND CONTACTED MAINT. A MECHANIC CAME OUT TO INSPECT THE PROB AND INFORMED THE FO AND ME THAT HE DID; IN FACT; SEE AN AREA WHERE FUEL HAD LEAKED DURING THE REFUELING PROCESS. HE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF FUEL THAT HAD LEAKED WAS NOT LARGE AND IT WAS COMING OUT VERY SLOWLY. I ASKED WHAT THE ALLOWABLE LEAKAGE WAS; IF ANY. HE DID NOT KNOW AND WENT TO RESEARCH THE SIT. WHILE WE WERE WAITING FOR THE MECHANIC TO RETURN; I CONTACTED MAINT CTR TO SEE IF I COULD GET ANY INFO DIRECTLY FROM THEM. MAINT CTR INFORMED ME THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO ALLOWABLE FUEL LEAKAGE. THE MECHANIC CAME BACK WITH ANOTHER MECHANIC WHO WAS SENIOR TO HIM. THE SECOND MECHANIC INSPECTED THE AREA; SAID THERE WAS NO LEAK AND SIGNED OFF THE MAINT LOG. WITH TWO MECHANICS GIVING ME CONFLICTING INFO; I DECIDED THE MOST PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION WAS FOR THE FO; THE TWO MECHANICS AND I TO INSPECT THE AREA TOGETHER; WHICH WE DID. WE NOTED AN AREA AROUND A FITTING ON THE NECK OF THE REFUELING MANIFOLD THAT SHOWED EVIDENCE OF A LEAK; WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY AN AREA OF THE RAMP DIRECTLY BELOW THE FITTING THAT WAS WET FROM THE FUEL LEAK. AT THIS POINT; THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY ADDITIONAL FUEL LEAKING OUT OF THE FITTING. THE SENIOR MECHANIC INSISTED THERE WAS NEVER A FUEL LEAK; WHILE THE FO AND I CLEARLY SAW EVIDENCE OF A LEAK. THE SENIOR MECHANIC SIGNED OFF THE MAINT LOG; WITHOUT HAVING TAKEN ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION; AND DEPARTED; STATING THIS TYPE OF THING WAS COMMON ON MD80'S. I ASKED THE OTHER MECHANIC TO CALL HIS SUPVR AND ASK HIM TO COME TO THE ACFT. WHILE WAITING FOR THE MAINT SUPVR; I CALLED MAINT CTR BACK. I RELAYED WHAT HAD JUST TRANSPIRED TO THEM AND ASKED FOR AN OPINION. THE REPRESENTATIVE I SPOKE WITH STATED; UNEQUIVOCALLY; THAT THE AREA WE WERE DISCUSSING WAS NOT PERMITTED ANY LEAKAGE. HE STATED; 'THERE IS NO LEAKAGE ALLOWED AT ALL; THE AREA MUST BE COMPLETELY DRY.' THE MAINT SUPVR ARRIVED WITH THE REFUELING SUPVR. THEY TOLD ME THAT THE REFUELER HAD ONLY BEEN ON THE JOB FOR A WEEK AND THAT THIS TYPE OF LEAK WAS COMMON ON MD80'S. THEY FURTHER STATED THAT IF MAINT ACTION WERE TAKEN EACH TIME THIS TYPE OF LEAK WAS DISCOVERED; THE MD80 FLEET WOULD NEVER FLY. THEIR IMPLICATION WAS THAT IF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REFUELED THE AIRPLANE WAS MORE EXPERIENCED; SHE WOULD HAVE NEVER RPTED THE LEAK. I WAS STILL ON THE PHONE WITH MAINT CTR AT THIS POINT AND DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE REP. THE REP SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF; I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU CAPT; THE MAINT MANUAL SAYS THE AREA HAS TO BE DRY. CLEARLY THE AREA WAS NOT DRY. I DISCUSSED THE REPS COMMENT WITH THE SUPVR AND WHAT FOLLOWED REALLY SHOCKED ME. THE SUPVR SAID THAT HE DIDN'T CARE WHAT THE REP FROM MAINT CTR SAID. HE STATED THAT HIS SENIOR TECHNICIAN; THE MAN WHO SIGNED OFF THE MAINT LOG; HAD BEEN DOING THIS SINCE 1964 AND THAT IF HE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS SAFE; HE WOULDN'T SIGN OFF THE MAINT LOG. I REMINDED HIM ABOUT WHAT THE MAINT MANUAL STATED. HE SAID THAT DID NOT MATTER AND IF HIS TECHNICIAN SIGNED IT OFF IT WAS OKAY TO GO. HE REITERATED THAT THE MD80 FLEET WOULD NEVER FLY IF THIS TYPE OF DISCREPANCY WAS CORRECTED EVERY TIME IT OCCURRED. I INFORMED THE SUPVR THAT BASED ON THE INFO I HAD; CORRECTIVE ACTION WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN BEFORE WE COULD DEPART WITH THE ACFT. THE SUPVR SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF; I KNOW HOW THIS WORKS; YOU PLTS CARRY THINGS ALL THE TIME IF THERE IS A PROB AND YOU WANT TO GET SOMEWHERE. WELL IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THE ACFT; ENTER A WRITE-UP INTO THE MAINT LOG SAYING THAT YOU ARE REFUSING THE ACFT. I RE-ENTERED A DISCREPANCY INTO THE MAINT LOG NOTING THE DISCOVERY OF THE LEAK AND THE INFO I RECEIVED FROM MAINT CTR. AT THAT POINT; THE ACFT WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE AND WE SWITCHED EQUIPMENT. THIS ENTIRE SIT SHOCKED ME. THERE WERE AT LEAST NINE PEOPLE WHO WERE AWARE OF WHAT TRANSPIRED; THE FUELER; THE FUELER'S SUPV; THE GND PERSON THE FUELER SPOKE WITH; THE FO; THE THREE MECHANICS; THE TECHNICIAN AT MAINT CTR; AND ME. REGARDLESS; THE MAINT SUPVR AND HIS SENIOR MECHANIC WERE BLATANTLY IGNORING THE MAINT MANUAL; TAKING IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS/IS ACCEPTABLE; IN SPITE OF WHAT THE BOOK SAYS. FURTHER; THE SUPVR WAS ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE US TO TAKE AN ACFT THAT WE KNEW HAD A DISCREPANCY; WHICH REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION; WITHOUT ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN. CONSIDERING THE SIT; I BELIEVE IT TO BE EXTREMELY LIKELY THAT THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE DISPLAY OF AGGRESSION IN THIS STATION BY MANAGEMENT AND ONE TECHNICIAN WAS SHOCKING IN THE WAY THE FUEL LEAK WAS HANDLED. THE RPTR SAID TRUST WAS LOST WITH THIS STATION AND EVERYTHING MUST BE VISIBLY CHECKED. THE RPTR STATED THE REPLY FROM THE ASAP RPT WAS AN 'O' RING SEAL WAS REPLACED IN THE FUELING MANIFOLD ADJACENT TO THE PRESSURE FUELING FITTING. THE RPTR SAID THE SUPPORT OF THE MAINT CTLR WAS LACKING TO CONVINCE THE MAINT SUPVR TO FIX THE LEAK.