Originally Posted by
SHVC
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.
I don't fly the 737 but... 😂
Originally Posted by
Transition Layer
Historical METAR data would suggest there were showers on and off all afternoon, temps in the mid teens.
A very fair case for 'getting onto' a transfer asap before the refuelling makes it more complicated. CSFF is a right pain on the old slug the engineers most often handle this rectification. If getting off a jet in a likely CSFF situation I'll let the ginger beer know and they'll look - hell, I've been told it's frosted as they plug in before. It's difficult to consider thickness as it can change after you look at it thus its conservative to do a transfer and get ahead of things.
NNCs assume normal switching.