Totally agree. Also, a fuel leak on top of the wing is seldom evident on the ground, even with full tanks.MCI transplant said:
I would also question the timing of this. Conspiracy theorists arise!
Safety Violations Alleged Against American
- Thread starter Hatu
- Start date
I would also question the timing of this. Conspiracy theorists arise!
The captain is at fault for not putting the item in the log book, that is - if he didn't - after gatting the info from an FAA inspector. I understand that an AMT checked out the area and found no obvious leek or seep. Fuel tank access panels on top of the wing will only leak if there is enough fuel in the wing tank to reach them. In a nutshell, the fed is an alarmist and probably a putz. Didn't get enough attention from mom and dad as a child.
Nov. 17th. Have to wonder where it spent the night before. If it was up north and had frost sprayed off that morning, it would be weeping glycol for a few flights.
There is another problem with this incident. If a mechanic was called and he inspected the upper wing surface and did not generate a non-routine or make a log book entry he is also in violation of FAR's and company policy because he did undocumented maintenance. If you inspected something you must document it. That’s why bag busters and cleaners cannot do aircraft inspecting at the line because it must be documented by a licensed mechanic per the GPM. This was tried at DFW after the overnight maint. program was changed after 9-11, which was illegal.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
<_< This is true! But now comes the question: Was a mechanic ever called in the first place ??? If the leak was on top of the wing, and there was no referance to a leak in the log, it is vary unlikly it would not have been found on a ststic aircraft, in the dark, where most overnight inspections are done!!Crapdog said:
The leak itself isn't much of an issue. Most MD-80 have on going fuel tank plate leaks. The design is just that bad. I've watched them leak all through the desent only to dry up on landing. If you fill that wing up on the ground and wait four hours, the leak will show up again. The pilots are at fault for not writing this up when informed of the leak by the inspector.
One shift manager at a west coast station is on thin ice over this one. It will be interesting to see how management handles it. If he falls, everyone all the way down will be more careful about what they sign off. AA does not want that. But AA needs to look good to the FAA, and he may be a sacrificial lamb.
This is a tough one for anyone in maintenance, though. Some airplanes will only leak in flight with a full tank. On the ground, at ground temperature and with the wings not producing any lift with the resultant flex, leaks may not be apparent. I hate to sound like I blame management for everything, but the decision has to be made to test fly the plane with a full load of fuel. And most of us have signed, "Unable to duplicate, checks OK" at some time or other.
.
This is a tough one for anyone in maintenance, though. Some airplanes will only leak in flight with a full tank. On the ground, at ground temperature and with the wings not producing any lift with the resultant flex, leaks may not be apparent. I hate to sound like I blame management for everything, but the decision has to be made to test fly the plane with a full load of fuel. And most of us have signed, "Unable to duplicate, checks OK" at some time or other.
.
Similar threads
