Narrative:

Required by cargo airline to fly aircraft not in compliance with far 25, far 121, or fuel system limitation listed in B747 aom page 3-01-5. All supporting documents enclosed. To correct this situation, it is imperative that the FAA monitor airline's maintenance not performed on a daily basis. Physically checking aircraft logbooks for violations not in compliance with approved maintenance practices. Accepted aircraft in hong kong. Inbound crew wrote in aircraft log #4 reverse tank leaking fuel. Hkg maintenance checked operation xfer valve -- found operation normal, unable to find fuel leaking into #4 main tank, no external leaks. Flight engineer fuel log shows fuel migration #4 reserve to #4 main. Flight from vhhh to rjcc flight engineer recorded fuel migrating from #4 reserve tank to #4 main tank in violation of aircraft limitation. Reserve tanks must be full at all aircraft gross weights above 600000 pounds in-flight. Received same aircraft log write-up in chitose which only checks the xfer valve which does not solve the problem. 600 pounds of fuel migrated from reserve #4 to #4 main tank in 9 hours while aircraft was parked on ground, yet this signoff said fuel was not leaking and the crew was required to fly from rjcc to panc with the same problem. In the freight business, crews fly 30-35 yr old aircraft that are not maintained properly. We rely on the FAA to enforce required maintenance to FAA standards. This safety issue not only affects us but all who fly in the same sky. Please encourage the FAA to perform continuous ramp checks. I gladly await their first arrival. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the PIC stated that the airline has misrepresented their aircraft's conditions many times, usually because they either don't understand the system or they don't understand the regulations. The PIC has talked, in general terms, with the poi of the airline and the local FSDO office. They both felt that the situation was not good and advised the captain that if he were to report the company's actions to them that he also would be drawn into the investigation. The poi appeared to be trying to make the airline 'toe the line' but only on the issues that they found, they didn't appear to be too eager to 'dig up a nest' from one person's report or allegations. Reporter was advised of the FAA hot line and he may use it yet but will wait until retirement, which is not too far away. The aircraft was finally worked on in anc and the mechanic found that the xfer valve between the #4 reserve tank and the #4 main tank was actually loose in its mounting, allowing the xfer or draining of fuel into #4 main.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPT FROM AIR CARGO CREW REGARDING UNWANTED FUEL XFER FROM THE #4 RESERVE FUEL TANK TO THE #4 MAIN FUEL TANK. RPT IMPLIES A LACK OF EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE AIRLINE MAINT POLICY PROC TO FIX THE PROB AND ASSERTS THAT CREW IS FORCED TO FLY DEFECTIVE ACFT.

Narrative: REQUIRED BY CARGO AIRLINE TO FLY ACFT NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH FAR 25, FAR 121, OR FUEL SYS LIMITATION LISTED IN B747 AOM PAGE 3-01-5. ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED. TO CORRECT THIS SIT, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE FAA MONITOR AIRLINE'S MAINT NOT PERFORMED ON A DAILY BASIS. PHYSICALLY CHKING ACFT LOGBOOKS FOR VIOLATIONS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED MAINT PRACTICES. ACCEPTED ACFT IN HONG KONG. INBOUND CREW WROTE IN ACFT LOG #4 REVERSE TANK LEAKING FUEL. HKG MAINT CHKED OP XFER VALVE -- FOUND OP NORMAL, UNABLE TO FIND FUEL LEAKING INTO #4 MAIN TANK, NO EXTERNAL LEAKS. FE FUEL LOG SHOWS FUEL MIGRATION #4 RESERVE TO #4 MAIN. FLT FROM VHHH TO RJCC FE RECORDED FUEL MIGRATING FROM #4 RESERVE TANK TO #4 MAIN TANK IN VIOLATION OF ACFT LIMITATION. RESERVE TANKS MUST BE FULL AT ALL ACFT GROSS WTS ABOVE 600000 LBS INFLT. RECEIVED SAME ACFT LOG WRITE-UP IN CHITOSE WHICH ONLY CHKS THE XFER VALVE WHICH DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROB. 600 LBS OF FUEL MIGRATED FROM RESERVE #4 TO #4 MAIN TANK IN 9 HRS WHILE ACFT WAS PARKED ON GND, YET THIS SIGNOFF SAID FUEL WAS NOT LEAKING AND THE CREW WAS REQUIRED TO FLY FROM RJCC TO PANC WITH THE SAME PROB. IN THE FREIGHT BUSINESS, CREWS FLY 30-35 YR OLD ACFT THAT ARE NOT MAINTAINED PROPERLY. WE RELY ON THE FAA TO ENFORCE REQUIRED MAINT TO FAA STANDARDS. THIS SAFETY ISSUE NOT ONLY AFFECTS US BUT ALL WHO FLY IN THE SAME SKY. PLEASE ENCOURAGE THE FAA TO PERFORM CONTINUOUS RAMP CHKS. I GLADLY AWAIT THEIR FIRST ARR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE PIC STATED THAT THE AIRLINE HAS MISREPRESENTED THEIR ACFT'S CONDITIONS MANY TIMES, USUALLY BECAUSE THEY EITHER DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SYS OR THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REGS. THE PIC HAS TALKED, IN GENERAL TERMS, WITH THE POI OF THE AIRLINE AND THE LCL FSDO OFFICE. THEY BOTH FELT THAT THE SIT WAS NOT GOOD AND ADVISED THE CAPT THAT IF HE WERE TO RPT THE COMPANY'S ACTIONS TO THEM THAT HE ALSO WOULD BE DRAWN INTO THE INVESTIGATION. THE POI APPEARED TO BE TRYING TO MAKE THE AIRLINE 'TOE THE LINE' BUT ONLY ON THE ISSUES THAT THEY FOUND, THEY DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE TOO EAGER TO 'DIG UP A NEST' FROM ONE PERSON'S RPT OR ALLEGATIONS. RPTR WAS ADVISED OF THE FAA HOT LINE AND HE MAY USE IT YET BUT WILL WAIT UNTIL RETIREMENT, WHICH IS NOT TOO FAR AWAY. THE ACFT WAS FINALLY WORKED ON IN ANC AND THE MECH FOUND THAT THE XFER VALVE BTWN THE #4 RESERVE TANK AND THE #4 MAIN TANK WAS ACTUALLY LOOSE IN ITS MOUNTING, ALLOWING THE XFER OR DRAINING OF FUEL INTO #4 MAIN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.