operating with leaking fuel tank?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northeastern EU
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
operating with leaking fuel tank?
Hi,
I am writing about a alleged case of airline operating more than 60 scheduled passenger flights with faulty / leaking fuel tank. The aircraft in question was Boeing 737 (either 737-300 or 737-500) and leak was in the central tank. As far as I know the tank in question was kept empty, but airline choose to continue operating until leak (allegedly caused by metal fatigue) was fixed.
Its perhaps better if I don't mention the name of airline here. Also, for background info: airline in question is not commenting at the moment and there is official investigation going on in the airline´s country of registration.
I am aware that journalists have rather questionable reputation among pilots, but perhaps its OK to ask some questions as I value highly your knowledge and I would like to avoid some possible mistakes I might otherwise make.
a) What is Boeing standard operating procedure regarding repair of leaking fuel tank?
b) Should leaking fuel tank be repaired right away (and ac grounded until repair is done) or is airline allowed by Boeing to continue operating if tank in question is kept empty?
c) Are there any safety risks involved when operating with B737 which has empty and punctured central fuel tank?
Thanks.
I am writing about a alleged case of airline operating more than 60 scheduled passenger flights with faulty / leaking fuel tank. The aircraft in question was Boeing 737 (either 737-300 or 737-500) and leak was in the central tank. As far as I know the tank in question was kept empty, but airline choose to continue operating until leak (allegedly caused by metal fatigue) was fixed.
Its perhaps better if I don't mention the name of airline here. Also, for background info: airline in question is not commenting at the moment and there is official investigation going on in the airline´s country of registration.
I am aware that journalists have rather questionable reputation among pilots, but perhaps its OK to ask some questions as I value highly your knowledge and I would like to avoid some possible mistakes I might otherwise make.
a) What is Boeing standard operating procedure regarding repair of leaking fuel tank?
b) Should leaking fuel tank be repaired right away (and ac grounded until repair is done) or is airline allowed by Boeing to continue operating if tank in question is kept empty?
c) Are there any safety risks involved when operating with B737 which has empty and punctured central fuel tank?
Thanks.
Malfunctions and continued operation are covered under FAA approved MELs (repairs and/or maintenance actions).
No use throwing this bone to the wolves of subjectivity in an wide open forum.
Perhaps in a specific maintenance forum might be best.
No use throwing this bone to the wolves of subjectivity in an wide open forum.
Perhaps in a specific maintenance forum might be best.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: England
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on, theres a big difference between a leaking fuel tank and punctured fuel tank.
Look around the ground under any vehicle. You'll see fluid leaks.
There's leaks and there's leaks! A slow ooze of liquid around a joint may well be deferable. I seem to recall operating with a known fuel leak - a while back now - if I remember correctly the engineers had to count the number of drips per unit of time. It doesn't even need the tank to not used.
In otherwords quite possibly a non event, but does depend if the appropriate maintenance checks were conducted.
pb
Look around the ground under any vehicle. You'll see fluid leaks.
There's leaks and there's leaks! A slow ooze of liquid around a joint may well be deferable. I seem to recall operating with a known fuel leak - a while back now - if I remember correctly the engineers had to count the number of drips per unit of time. It doesn't even need the tank to not used.
In otherwords quite possibly a non event, but does depend if the appropriate maintenance checks were conducted.
pb
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
justanotherjourno, Ask yourself two questions;
1. Would licensed engineers release an aircraft to service with a No Go defect?
2. Would the flight crew accept an aircraft with a No Go defect?
Now you've got it.
1. Would licensed engineers release an aircraft to service with a No Go defect?
2. Would the flight crew accept an aircraft with a No Go defect?
Now you've got it.
As a 737 Captain, I will be more than happy to answer your question, with one condition of course:
That would be when the typical journalist achieves a level of performance in terms of accuracy, integrity, attention to detail and general reliability that is even just 10% of that of the worlds airlines.
Feel free to lurk around the boards. You'll find these performance standards aren't real difficult to achieve
That would be when the typical journalist achieves a level of performance in terms of accuracy, integrity, attention to detail and general reliability that is even just 10% of that of the worlds airlines.
Feel free to lurk around the boards. You'll find these performance standards aren't real difficult to achieve
Join Date: May 2005
Location: italy
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stain, Seep, Heavy seep and Running leak these are the fuel leak patterns. Heavy seep repair immediately unless in open area with good flow of air and cannot move to a possible fire source, running leak repair immediately. Stain and seep can fly in some cases dependent on where leak is from
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northeastern EU
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As a 737 Captain, I will be more than happy to answer your question, with one condition of course:
That would be when the typical journalist achieves a level of performance in terms of accuracy, integrity, attention to detail and general reliability that is even just 10% of that of the worlds airlines.
Feel free to lurk around the boards. You'll find these performance standards aren't real difficult to achieve
"
Thank you. I have been lurking here for few years now. English is not my mother language however and I apologize for mistakes resulting from this.
"Stain and seep can fly in some cases dependent on where leak is from"
I have heard (but that´s hearsay) that defect was in the upper part of fuel tank and temporary solution was to not fill tank fully, but then mistake was made in foreign airport and tank was filled in full. This resulted in visible accumulation of fuel below aircraft.
That would be when the typical journalist achieves a level of performance in terms of accuracy, integrity, attention to detail and general reliability that is even just 10% of that of the worlds airlines.
Feel free to lurk around the boards. You'll find these performance standards aren't real difficult to achieve
"Thank you. I have been lurking here for few years now. English is not my mother language however and I apologize for mistakes resulting from this.
"Stain and seep can fly in some cases dependent on where leak is from"
I have heard (but that´s hearsay) that defect was in the upper part of fuel tank and temporary solution was to not fill tank fully, but then mistake was made in foreign airport and tank was filled in full. This resulted in visible accumulation of fuel below aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Position info not valid
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote - I am aware that journalists have rather questionable reputation among pilots, but perhaps its OK to ask some questions as I value highly your knowledge and I would like to avoid some possible mistakes I might otherwise make.
In order to do that it would help if you were a trained, licenced and approved engineer who could then understand the approved maintenance manual section that applies to this area and problem and understand the limits of whats acceptable, whats not acceptable and if its acceptable under what circumstances and for how long.
May be now you can understand why so many journos get it so wrong on so many occasions.
In order to do that it would help if you were a trained, licenced and approved engineer who could then understand the approved maintenance manual section that applies to this area and problem and understand the limits of whats acceptable, whats not acceptable and if its acceptable under what circumstances and for how long.
May be now you can understand why so many journos get it so wrong on so many occasions.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't it be helpful to everybody by just giving the guy a direct answer instead of all the clever cryptic comments.
Would a normal situation warrant an investigation?
Maybe he is onto something or maybe the whole situation as described is a load of rubbish. Only proper replies will give us the answer.
Would a normal situation warrant an investigation?
Maybe he is onto something or maybe the whole situation as described is a load of rubbish. Only proper replies will give us the answer.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: italy
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may help A Stain is a leak where the wet area has a width not more than 1.5 inches after 15 miutes. A Seep wet area not larger than 4 inches. A heavy seep not larger than 6 inches. A running leak area larger than 6 inches.All running leaks have to be repaired immediately
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NE Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a fellow citizen of this justanother yourno's home country, the article itself was rubbish. The main points of this article was, that technicans signed airplane is fit to fly and MEL actions was'nt followed. Local CAA will probably publish report about this next week, so only then we can make some conclusions about this incident.
Without any evidence they wrote that the procedures for leaking tank havent followed (although in some point of this article they mention that pilots was directed to fly with empty center tank).
Anyhow, the flag carrier of this Northeastern EU country is constantly under attack of journalists and last year and a half, there isnt published any good news about this company in national papers.
Sad.
Without any evidence they wrote that the procedures for leaking tank havent followed (although in some point of this article they mention that pilots was directed to fly with empty center tank).
Anyhow, the flag carrier of this Northeastern EU country is constantly under attack of journalists and last year and a half, there isnt published any good news about this company in national papers.
Sad.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyhow, the flag carrier of this Northeastern EU country is constantly under attack of journalists and last year and a half, there isnt published any good news about this company in national papers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northeastern EU
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, president of Estonian Air has made following statements on their website (in Estonian only)
Estonian Air ametlik blogi: Estonian Air | Lennukad mõtted
AS Estonian Air - Uudised - Pressiteated - Estonian Air
"Juhtumi põhjal heidab Lennuamet nii Estonian Airile kui ka AMEle ette seda, et rikuti lennuohutusnõudeid, mis näevad ette kindlate protseduuride järgimist ka väikseima veakahtluse korral."
"Tegu oli keskmise kütusepaagi lekkekahtlusega, millest AME meile kirjalikult ei teatanud, vaid tunnistas lennuki lennukõlbulikuks. Info võimaliku kütusepaagi lekke kohta jõudis Estonian Airi suulise märkusena. Estonian Air otsustas aga igasuguste riskide vältimiseks keskmist kütusepaaki kuni selle võimaliku rikke väljaselgitamiseni mitte kasutada. Paraku ei järgitud nende otsuste tegemisel kõiki ettevõttes kehtestatud protseduure."
In selective translation:
* Estonian CAA accuses Estonian Air and Air Maintenance Estonia of breaching safety regulations
* Air Maintenance Estonia did not inform us in writing about suspected leak in central tank
*Officially they cleared aircraft to be airworthy
* Verbally, however, they made a remark about suspected leak
* As a safety precaution, we decided not to fill central tank
* However, we did not follow all the procedures we had to follow
This story is not over yet
Estonian Air ametlik blogi: Estonian Air | Lennukad mõtted
AS Estonian Air - Uudised - Pressiteated - Estonian Air
"Juhtumi põhjal heidab Lennuamet nii Estonian Airile kui ka AMEle ette seda, et rikuti lennuohutusnõudeid, mis näevad ette kindlate protseduuride järgimist ka väikseima veakahtluse korral."
"Tegu oli keskmise kütusepaagi lekkekahtlusega, millest AME meile kirjalikult ei teatanud, vaid tunnistas lennuki lennukõlbulikuks. Info võimaliku kütusepaagi lekke kohta jõudis Estonian Airi suulise märkusena. Estonian Air otsustas aga igasuguste riskide vältimiseks keskmist kütusepaaki kuni selle võimaliku rikke väljaselgitamiseni mitte kasutada. Paraku ei järgitud nende otsuste tegemisel kõiki ettevõttes kehtestatud protseduure."
In selective translation:
* Estonian CAA accuses Estonian Air and Air Maintenance Estonia of breaching safety regulations
* Air Maintenance Estonia did not inform us in writing about suspected leak in central tank
*Officially they cleared aircraft to be airworthy
* Verbally, however, they made a remark about suspected leak
* As a safety precaution, we decided not to fill central tank
* However, we did not follow all the procedures we had to follow
This story is not over yet
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without any information provided regarding the "leak," it's really impossible to comment on the leak itself, or the circumstances which surround it.
What constitutes a "leak" is defined in the specific aircraft maintenance manual. In order to determine whether there was indeed a leak, we will need to know the exact nature of the problem. Leaks and seeps are defined by the amount of fluid lost in a given period of time, and how it's manifest. A leak or a seep is indeed an acceptable condition, under certain circumstances. These circumstances are specifically spelled out by the manufacturer.
Where a problem exists with a component of an aircraft, or a system, documents and procedures are provided which may permit operation of the aircraft, provided certain conditions are met. These documents include minimum equipment lists (MEL's) and configuration deviation lists (CDL's). When a component is not in a condition for use, terms will be spelled out defining exactly how long this condition may be allowed to continue, what is required to make it legal and safe, and how the aircraft may be operated in that condition.
A auxilliary fuel cell which cannot be used, for example, might have a MEL relief allowing the aircraft to fly so long as pumps serving that fuel cell are deactivated, the controls in the cockpit are placarded, the system is made unavailable or deactivated, etc. The relief offered by the MEL might include a time limit of 30 days, and may include limitations on how the aircraft is operated. This is, of course, an example of what might be. I don't know what is contained in the provisions for the unnamed operator under discussion. For that matter, we don't know the nature of the problem itself beyond a very vague description.
Airworthiness is defined by two things; it must be legal, and it must be safe. The legalities are arranged by the approved documentation and the operating limitations given to the certificate holder (airline or operator). What is safe is also defined by these documents, as well as the judgement and observation of the maintenance professionals who oversee the work, and the pilots who fly the equipment to some degree. For the aircraft to be airworthy, it must conform to the condition in which it was certified, or be modified in an approved manner, and the modification is the purpose of the minimum equipment list or configuration deviation list. These spell out exactly what must be done to be legal, and to be safe.
I would be careful with accusations and assumptions, even alleged ones, without being in possession of the facts...every bit as much as each of us responding to you must equally be careful, having been given no significant information regarding the matter at hand.
What constitutes a "leak" is defined in the specific aircraft maintenance manual. In order to determine whether there was indeed a leak, we will need to know the exact nature of the problem. Leaks and seeps are defined by the amount of fluid lost in a given period of time, and how it's manifest. A leak or a seep is indeed an acceptable condition, under certain circumstances. These circumstances are specifically spelled out by the manufacturer.
Where a problem exists with a component of an aircraft, or a system, documents and procedures are provided which may permit operation of the aircraft, provided certain conditions are met. These documents include minimum equipment lists (MEL's) and configuration deviation lists (CDL's). When a component is not in a condition for use, terms will be spelled out defining exactly how long this condition may be allowed to continue, what is required to make it legal and safe, and how the aircraft may be operated in that condition.
A auxilliary fuel cell which cannot be used, for example, might have a MEL relief allowing the aircraft to fly so long as pumps serving that fuel cell are deactivated, the controls in the cockpit are placarded, the system is made unavailable or deactivated, etc. The relief offered by the MEL might include a time limit of 30 days, and may include limitations on how the aircraft is operated. This is, of course, an example of what might be. I don't know what is contained in the provisions for the unnamed operator under discussion. For that matter, we don't know the nature of the problem itself beyond a very vague description.
Airworthiness is defined by two things; it must be legal, and it must be safe. The legalities are arranged by the approved documentation and the operating limitations given to the certificate holder (airline or operator). What is safe is also defined by these documents, as well as the judgement and observation of the maintenance professionals who oversee the work, and the pilots who fly the equipment to some degree. For the aircraft to be airworthy, it must conform to the condition in which it was certified, or be modified in an approved manner, and the modification is the purpose of the minimum equipment list or configuration deviation list. These spell out exactly what must be done to be legal, and to be safe.
I would be careful with accusations and assumptions, even alleged ones, without being in possession of the facts...every bit as much as each of us responding to you must equally be careful, having been given no significant information regarding the matter at hand.
