A CL65-200 CAPT RPTS PRESSURE FUELING USED WHEN SYS IS MEL'ED. CAPT NOTED THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT.

Narrative

FLT CREW OBSERVED ACFT BEING FUELED USING THE PRESSURE FUELING SYS UPON AR. UPON REVIEWING THE ACFT MAINT LOG; CREW LEARNED THAT THE ACFT HAD DEFERRAL MEL 28-25-03 THAT WOULD PROHIBIT IT FROM BEING REFUELED USING PRESSURE SYS AND REQUIRING GRAVITY REFUELING PROCS TO BE EMPLOYED. THE FLT CREW NOTED THAT THE MEL STICKER REQUIRED TO BE ON THE FUEL SVC PANEL WAS MISSING SO THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE GND CREW WOULD HAVE BEEN ALERTED TO NOT USE THE PRESSURE REFUELING SYS. MAINT CTL WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN SVCED CONTRARY TO THE MEL RESTRS; AND AN ENTRY WAS MADE IN THE MAINT LOG. A MECH INSPECTED THE ACFT; INSTALLED A PLACARD ON THE FUEL SVC PANEL; SIGNED OFF THE WRITE-UP AND THE FLT DEPARTED. I FIND THAT ACFT WITH INOP PRESSURE FUELING SYS ARE FUELED USING THE DEFERRED SYS ON A DAILY BASIS. I KNOW FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCES; AS WELL AS FROM TALKING TO OTHER CREWS; THAT PERSONNEL WILL ALMOST ALWAYS AT LEAST ATTEMPT TO USE THE PRESSURE FUELING SYS EVEN WITH IT IS PLACARDED; UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE CREW TO USE GRAVITY FUELING PROCS. WHILE I CANNOT REMEMBER ANY ACFT BEING DAMAGED (YET); I KNOW THAT ACFT HAVE BEEN DAMAGED AT OTHER COMPANIES; AND I KNOW THAT AT LEAST ONE CREW HAS BEEN CITED BY THE FAA AFTER ACCEPTING AN ACFT THAT HAD BEEN FUELED USING THE DEFERRED SYS. I HAVE SUGGESTED IN THE PAST THAT THE MEL SHOULD REQUIRE THE PRESSURE FUELING CAP BE SAFETY WIRED CLOSED OR IN SOME OTHER WAY LOCKED TO ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPROPER FUEL SVCING WHETHER IT BE INTENTIONAL OR INADVERTENT. THIS RECOMMENDATION WAS REJECTED. IF AN AUDIT OR SURVEILLANCE OF ACFT WITH DEFERRED PRESSURE FUELING SYS WERE CONDUCTED; IT WOULD SHOW THAT THOSE ACFT ARE FUELED USING THE DEFERRED SYS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE MEL ON A DAILY BASIS.