Narrative:

Following bladder tank replacement in a G200; I was called to buy off installation of fuel vent tube above right wing at fuselage. I was notified that this was a new part because the original u-shaped vent tube was damaged. I was also notified that this vent tube had been a problem to attach because it seemed short and pressure had to be applied to attach it. I questioned whether or not this was the correct tube and proceeded to call the manager who had ordered the part; and I inquired about the apparent mismatch with the parts being assembled. The manager told me he had been working on this for almost 2 days. He had a manufacturer representative look at it as well as consultation with gulfstream technician operations help desk. All verified the proper part was what we had; and told me it may require an unusual amount of force to attach the line; but because the run had 4 wiggins fittings; each of which have an 8 inch or more of slack in them; that the line would be fine once installed. I argued with our manager that this was not proper maintenance practice and I could not see how it could even be connected since it would have had to be stretched. He told me that he (the manager) had it attached previously but; not being careful; he had dented the line. He basically told me to get it on or damage it trying because the airplane was to leave the following day. Well; the mechanics applied an unusual amount of force stretching the u-shaped line; and did get the wiggins fitting installed. I was prepared as an inspector to find fault with the installation; but afterward I could rotate wiggins fittings all along the run-off lines which appeared to me to be acceptable. I; as an inspector; signed this installation; but knowing the force it took to install it; I am sending in this form. Manufacturer and gulfstream are totally aware of this problem and I in no way feel comfortable applying forces like this to thin wall fuel lines. I have been told there have been no failures as a result of this installation in any other aircraft; but being a relatively new fleet; it is an area of concern to me. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the tube had 4 wiggins fittings and when loose; the u-shaped tube could be expanded to make the connections. Observing the force required; the reporter stated it looked terrible until the connections were made and the wiggins couplings tightened. The manufacturer's technical representative and gulfstream's technician people were involved in the tube replacement and all advised the reporter that excessive force was required. The reporter accomplished the inspection and approved the installation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A G200 HAD A R UPPER WING FUEL VENT TUBE INSTALLED. INSPECTOR WAS RELUCTANT TO BUY OFF INSTALLATION DUE TO FORCE REQUIRED TO INSTALL TUBE.

Narrative: FOLLOWING BLADDER TANK REPLACEMENT IN A G200; I WAS CALLED TO BUY OFF INSTALLATION OF FUEL VENT TUBE ABOVE R WING AT FUSELAGE. I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THIS WAS A NEW PART BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL U-SHAPED VENT TUBE WAS DAMAGED. I WAS ALSO NOTIFIED THAT THIS VENT TUBE HAD BEEN A PROB TO ATTACH BECAUSE IT SEEMED SHORT AND PRESSURE HAD TO BE APPLIED TO ATTACH IT. I QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS THE CORRECT TUBE AND PROCEEDED TO CALL THE MGR WHO HAD ORDERED THE PART; AND I INQUIRED ABOUT THE APPARENT MISMATCH WITH THE PARTS BEING ASSEMBLED. THE MGR TOLD ME HE HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR ALMOST 2 DAYS. HE HAD A MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE LOOK AT IT AS WELL AS CONSULTATION WITH GULFSTREAM TECHNICIAN OPS HELP DESK. ALL VERIFIED THE PROPER PART WAS WHAT WE HAD; AND TOLD ME IT MAY REQUIRE AN UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF FORCE TO ATTACH THE LINE; BUT BECAUSE THE RUN HAD 4 WIGGINS FITTINGS; EACH OF WHICH HAVE AN 8 INCH OR MORE OF SLACK IN THEM; THAT THE LINE WOULD BE FINE ONCE INSTALLED. I ARGUED WITH OUR MGR THAT THIS WAS NOT PROPER MAINT PRACTICE AND I COULD NOT SEE HOW IT COULD EVEN BE CONNECTED SINCE IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE STRETCHED. HE TOLD ME THAT HE (THE MGR) HAD IT ATTACHED PREVIOUSLY BUT; NOT BEING CAREFUL; HE HAD DENTED THE LINE. HE BASICALLY TOLD ME TO GET IT ON OR DAMAGE IT TRYING BECAUSE THE AIRPLANE WAS TO LEAVE THE FOLLOWING DAY. WELL; THE MECHS APPLIED AN UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF FORCE STRETCHING THE U-SHAPED LINE; AND DID GET THE WIGGINS FITTING INSTALLED. I WAS PREPARED AS AN INSPECTOR TO FIND FAULT WITH THE INSTALLATION; BUT AFTERWARD I COULD ROTATE WIGGINS FITTINGS ALL ALONG THE RUN-OFF LINES WHICH APPEARED TO ME TO BE ACCEPTABLE. I; AS AN INSPECTOR; SIGNED THIS INSTALLATION; BUT KNOWING THE FORCE IT TOOK TO INSTALL IT; I AM SENDING IN THIS FORM. MANUFACTURER AND GULFSTREAM ARE TOTALLY AWARE OF THIS PROB AND I IN NO WAY FEEL COMFORTABLE APPLYING FORCES LIKE THIS TO THIN WALL FUEL LINES. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THERE HAVE BEEN NO FAILURES AS A RESULT OF THIS INSTALLATION IN ANY OTHER ACFT; BUT BEING A RELATIVELY NEW FLEET; IT IS AN AREA OF CONCERN TO ME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE TUBE HAD 4 WIGGINS FITTINGS AND WHEN LOOSE; THE U-SHAPED TUBE COULD BE EXPANDED TO MAKE THE CONNECTIONS. OBSERVING THE FORCE REQUIRED; THE RPTR STATED IT LOOKED TERRIBLE UNTIL THE CONNECTIONS WERE MADE AND THE WIGGINS COUPLINGS TIGHTENED. THE MANUFACTURER'S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE AND GULFSTREAM'S TECHNICIAN PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN THE TUBE REPLACEMENT AND ALL ADVISED THE RPTR THAT EXCESSIVE FORCE WAS REQUIRED. THE RPTR ACCOMPLISHED THE INSPECTION AND APPROVED THE INSTALLATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.