Two Line Mechanics; one Captain; and a First and Second Officer report on their involvement with a B727-200 being released with the left wing #1 fuel tank empty. Aircraft returned to gate due to # 1 engine flamed-out prior to take-off. The cockpit and left wing fuel quantity gauges were previously deferred inoperative. Use of drip sticks to verify fuel amount was not an approved process.
Synopsis
Two Line Mechanics; one Captain; and a First and Second Officer report on their involvement with a B727-200 being released with the left wing #1 fuel tank empty. Aircraft returned to gate due to # 1 engine flamed-out prior to take-off. The cockpit and left wing fuel quantity gauges were previously deferred inoperative. Use of drip sticks to verify fuel amount was not an approved process.
Narrative
A B727-200 aircraft blocked into the gate as scheduled. Began set up to transfer fuel and called Maintenance Control and spoke with Controller Mr. 'X'. Told him that we would 'Zero' the fuel amount in tank #1 and transfer that fuel to tanks #2 and #3. We also asked Maintenance Controller Mr. 'X' what the final fuel load would be and told [him] that we would try to place correct amount of final fuel load into tanks #2 and #3; using fuel from tank #1; as it needed to be fueled to a known quantity due to the Indication System was on MEL into ZZZ. Went to address other aircraft assignments.I did not receive; or did not hear; a call about the B727 aircraft being fueled to a known quantity and decided to drive by aircraft. Went into cockpit and saw that fuel slip had been filled out for all three tanks. Also saw that tank #1 showed being fueled to 8;800 LBS. It should be noted that the cockpit and wing #1 Fuel Quantity Indication gauges read zero after block-in; with approximately 4;000 LBS. After transferring fuel in tank #1 to tanks #2 and #3; nothing seemed out of order when I saw 8;800 LBS. of fuel load written by the Fueler on the fuel slip for final load even though the guage still read zero.I did not speak to Fueler and believed fuel slip to be correct. I am aware of company's fueling policies and should have been at aircraft when being fueled to a known quantity; but was addressing other aircraft and awaiting a call from Maintenance Control as to when B727 aircraft was to be fueled to a known quantity. When the aircraft returned to the gate the first time; after #1 engine shut down; I checked the #1 tank (Drip) stick and knew then it had not been fueled as requested to a known quantity.At that time; the fuelers were called to place a known quantity of fuel into #1 tank. During second pushback; the flight crew received '0' fuel flow indication during #1 engine start and aircraft returned to gate. I suspected then at this point that there was air in the fuel line. I communicated this to my Lead and it was decided to ground the aircraft for further evaluation.
Second reporter narrative
Aircraft Maintenance Log (AML) showed an MEL for inoperative #1 fuel gauge for #1 fuel tank. Ensured Maintenance Log had required 'defueled tank #1 and refueled to known quantity; 8;800 LBS; 1;300 gallons;' which it did. Captain discussed write-up with Mechanic because the Mechanic had this entered under the 'MEL' section of the forms; the Captain wanted it in the Discrepancy Section so it would have a 'CLOSED' reference in the forms.There was an inconsistency in the Fuel Ticket [Slip] that I should have caught. The Fuel Ticket showed an upload of 507 gallons versus the 1;300 gallons stated in the AML. The Totals on the Fuel Ticket were correct and I spent a lot of time preparing a Fuel Log for the flight. I should have focused more on the Fuel Ticket.After pushback and during 'After Start' checklist; the #1 engine flamed out. We taxied back to the gate where we discovered no fuel in #1 tank. There was enough fuel initially to extinguish boost pump lights and start engine. Apparently there was some miscommunication between Maintenance and the Contract Fuel Vendor. The Vendor claims Maintenance told them that #1 fuel tank had 8;800 LBS already and to upload fuel to tanks #2 and #3. Maintenance claims they told the Refueler they had transferred all fuel out of tank #1 into tanks #2 and #3; and that tank #1 required uplift of 8;800 LBS.Recommend drip stick of tank with inoperative gauge to confirm approximate stated fuel within a certain margin of error.
NASA callback
Reporter stated the #1 fuel tank cockpit and wing fuel gauges read zero under all conditions. He defueled #1 tank using the fuel Boost Pumps to transfer fuel out of #1 tank until the Boost Pump low pressure lights came on. Using wing fuel drip sticks to verify the amount of fuel in a tank is not an approved process in their company policy; because of environmental concerns with fuel spilling on the ground from the drip sticks if not properly contained.Reporter stated he was correct in determining that after filling #1 tank with fuel; the reason #1 engine did not start during the second pushback was the result of air in the fuel lines. Maintenance 'Dry motored' #1 engine until the engine fuel pressure was in limits and subsequent starts were OK.Reporter stated the lack of correct information and communication could have made the incidence a lot worse. If the #1 engine had started and the B727 had taken-off and #1 engine flamed out at rotation or shortly after; the wing fuel imbalance would roll the aircraft; making recovery questionable. Reporter stated his company policy now requires a Fueler to wait until a Mechanic arrives before fueling any aircraft that requires a known amount of fuel to be uploaded. Use of drip sticks for fuel verification is still not approved.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.