Originally Posted by
framer
I’m not making comment on how this was handled one way or the other, but I do think that fuel imbalances and leak identification on the 737 is something that is more difficult than most people assume. I’m not sure why this is the case, I have experienced confusion when trying to determine if we have a leak and my takeaway is that the pilots have to be very very diligent and methodical in stepping through the checklists and that the (totaliser fuel + remaining fuel) calculation is rarely going to be perfect, two or three hundred kg’s is to be expected. I take a ‘there but for the grace of God…’ approach to it.
Does anyone know if there was visible moisture/ precipitation at the field on the day?
My point was not to berate the crew. I believe there is a lot more questions than the handling of this, but I won’t get o to that. Was a 3% check carried out after refueling? The report doesn’t mention it, the captain doesn’t mention it! I find that weird not to be included in the report, I would be curious to how thick the CSFF was in late after noon in October in Perth seems the engineer made no attempt to ascertain the thickness!
I don’t fly the 737 I can assume there is a fuel system page? FOD on the MCDU or equivalent or FOD on flight plan as a minimum. Looking at what’s in the tanks looking at what has been used then referring to the fuel check after a 3% calculation after the refueling was complete for FOD this could have been easily avoided or rectified in the air using the checklist Numbers in the tanks will always be the same after fuel check on the ground. Unless there is an actual leak it won’t add up. Diligence with fuel management is one of the most important aspects of our job, just in this case it was not.