PILOT REPORTS A B757-200 R TANK FUEL QUANTITY GAUGE WAS DEFERRED AS INOP AND READING 1600# LBS LESS THAN LEFT TANK. R TANK DRIPSTICK SHOWED GAUGE WAS CORRECT. UNCOMMANDED FUEL TRANSFER OR LEAK WAS OCCURRING. MAINT SUPERVISOR REFUSED TO CHANGE DEFERRAL.

Narrative

ACFT WAS INITIALLY RELEASED WITH A FUEL QUANTITY GAUGE INOP FOR THE R TANK. THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP NOTED 'IMBAL DEVELOPED WITH R WING APPROX 1000-1200 LBS LOWER THAN L TANK.' MAINT DEFERRED THE R FUEL QUANTITY INDICATING SYS. ON ARR AT THE ACFT; I REQUESTED THAT THE R TANK BE DRIPPED TO CONFIRM THE ARR FUEL. FUELING RPT NOTED THAT THE R TANK QUANTITY; PRE-SVC; WAS 3055 LBS COMPARED TO L TANK AT 4600 LBS; A DIFFERENCE OF NEARLY 1600 LBS. I EXPRESSED CONCERN TO MAINT THAT THE DEFERRAL WRONGLY FAULTED THE INDICATING SYS WHEREAS THE PROB WAS A LEAK OR UNCOMMANDED XFER. THE ACFT HAD FLOWN FOR 3 DAYS WITH THE GAUGE DEFERRED AND PLTS THINKING THEY HAD FUEL THEY CLRLY DID NOT. THE ACFT HAD ARRIVED FROM ZZZ AND THE CREW RPTED BLOCK-IN FUEL OF 9200 FT WHEN THEY ACTUALLY HAD ONLY 7655 LBS. THE LINE MECHS AGREED WITH MY CONCERN. THE ACFT HAD 'LOTS OF HISTORY' AND WAS SCHEDULED FOR AN EXTENSIVE CHK OF THE SYS UPON ARR AT ZZZ1. THE MAINT SUPVR CALLED TO THE SCENE WAS UNCOOPERATIVE IN TRYING TO DIAGNOSE THE PROB AND UNRECEPTIVE TO MY CONCERNS. AFTER A TIRING DISCUSSION WITH HIM; I HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO EXERCISE MY AUTH AND REFUSE THE ACFT. I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH AN ATTITUDE BY A MAINT SUPVR IN MY 22 YRS AT ACR X. CLRLY THE SAFETY CULTURE IS BEING ERODED. WE WERE EVENTUALLY MOVED TO A DIFFERENT ACFT. MY OTHER CONCERNS ARE CHANGES IN THE REFUSAL PROC THAT MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR REFUSAL INFO TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO SUBSEQUENT CREWS. MY CONCERNS DID NOT LEAD TO A CHANGE IN THE DEFERRAL OR ANY ADDITIONAL DETAILS BEING ADDED TO THE LOG HISTORY (OTHER THAN A CURSORY ENTRY BY DISPATCH). I WAS FORCED TO SEND A COMPANY EMAIL TO THE OUTGOING CAPT TO ALERT HIM OF THE PROBS WITH THE ACFT. I NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENTER A FULL NARRATIVE OF MY CONCERNS IN THE OFFICIAL RECORD. IN THIS SITUATION; WITH AN INCORRECT DEFERRAL; AND A VERY UNCOOPERATIVE MAINT SUPVR; IT IS NOW NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS VITAL INFO TO SUBSEQUENT CREWS. THIS CHANGE IN PROC NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THE R DRIPSTICK READING HE REQUESTED DEMONSTRATED THE RIGHT TANK FUEL QUANTITY GAUGE WAS IN FACT READING CORRECTLY; NOT 1600# LBS LESS AS THE MEL DEFERRAL STATED. THE INITIAL LOG WRITE-UP NOTED A FUEL IMBALANCE HAD DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE LEFT AND RIGHT TANKS. REPORTER STATED SINCE THE RIGHT TANK DRIPSTICK READING AND QUANTITY GAUGE WERE IN AGREEMENT; THE DEFERRAL FOR THE R QUANTITY GAUGE WAS NOT CORRECT. THE REAL ISSUE WAS AN UNCOMMANDED FUEL TRANSFER OR FUEL LEAK IN FLIGHT; OF APPROX 1600# LBS. MAINT SUPERVISOR REFUSED TO CORRECT THE MEL DEFERRAL; EVEN THOUGH HIS LINE MECHANICS WERE TELLING HIM THE INCORRECT DEFERRAL WOULD MAKE FLIGHT CREWS BELIEVE THEY HAVE 1600# LBS MORE FUEL THAN WHAT THE QUANTITY GAUGE READ. THE NEXT OUTBOUND CREW REFUSED THE SAME ACFT FOR THE SAME REASON. REPORTER STATED IF A DRIPSTICK READING HAD BEEN PERFORMED INITIALLY; THE UNCOMMANDED FUEL TRANSFER OR LEAK WOULD HAVE BEEN REALIZED AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEFERRABLE. REPORTER STATED HIS CARRIER HAS DISABLED PILOT'S ABILITY TO ENTER ACFT HISTORY OR NARRATIVE IN THEIR COMPANY'S COMPUTER TO INFORM OUTBOUND PILOTS OF WHY AN ACFT WAS REFUSED. EVEN THE LANGUAGE IN THEIR FLIGHT OPERATIONS MANUAL HAS BEEN CHANGED THAT STATES PILOTS COMMENTS ARE INDIVIDUAL AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE STATUS OF THE ACFT.