Narrative:

Aircraft had 2 fuel leaks coming from the left and right surge tanks. The write-up said that maintenance would watch the leak but provided no details about the origin of the leak or what may have caused the leak. The captain refused the aircraft by sending an ACARS message to dispatch citing the fuel leaks and dispatch responded by saying that aircraft was refused for flight. Upon arrival at the gate at approximately XA15; aircraft was sitting there prepared for flight. We thought that maintenance had fixed the gripe or had accomplished a more thorough troubleshooting procedure but they had done nothing to our knowledge. The captain called for a conference with maintenance. The mechanic said the area of the leak was dry and after investigating the history could not provide any more details into the original troubleshooting procedures. He felt the aircraft was fine for flight but acknowledged that he would have done a more extensive troubleshooting procedure to determine the origin of the leak. I recommended to the captain that because we could not determine the origin of the leak that we refuse the aircraft. The captain did refuse it; for the second time and we got another aircraft. At no time from our arrival until we arrived at gate did anyone; dispatch; maintenance; or flight operations; attempt to contact the captain to further discuss the aircraft status but rather the aircraft was awaiting our arrival at the gate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 FLIGHT CREW REFUSES AIRCRAFT FOR SURGE TANK FUEL LEAKS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATED BY MAINTENANCE. SIGN OFF INDICATES THAT MAINTENANCE WILL MONITOR FOR FURTHER LEAKS.

Narrative: ACFT HAD 2 FUEL LEAKS COMING FROM THE L AND R SURGE TANKS. THE WRITE-UP SAID THAT MAINT WOULD WATCH THE LEAK BUT PROVIDED NO DETAILS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE LEAK OR WHAT MAY HAVE CAUSED THE LEAK. THE CAPT REFUSED THE ACFT BY SENDING AN ACARS MESSAGE TO DISPATCH CITING THE FUEL LEAKS AND DISPATCH RESPONDED BY SAYING THAT ACFT WAS REFUSED FOR FLT. UPON ARR AT THE GATE AT APPROX XA15; ACFT WAS SITTING THERE PREPARED FOR FLT. WE THOUGHT THAT MAINT HAD FIXED THE GRIPE OR HAD ACCOMPLISHED A MORE THOROUGH TROUBLESHOOTING PROC BUT THEY HAD DONE NOTHING TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. THE CAPT CALLED FOR A CONFERENCE WITH MAINT. THE MECH SAID THE AREA OF THE LEAK WAS DRY AND AFTER INVESTIGATING THE HISTORY COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY MORE DETAILS INTO THE ORIGINAL TROUBLESHOOTING PROCS. HE FELT THE ACFT WAS FINE FOR FLT BUT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE A MORE EXTENSIVE TROUBLESHOOTING PROC TO DETERMINE THE ORIGIN OF THE LEAK. I RECOMMENDED TO THE CAPT THAT BECAUSE WE COULD NOT DETERMINE THE ORIGIN OF THE LEAK THAT WE REFUSE THE ACFT. THE CAPT DID REFUSE IT; FOR THE SECOND TIME AND WE GOT ANOTHER ACFT. AT NO TIME FROM OUR ARR UNTIL WE ARRIVED AT GATE DID ANYONE; DISPATCH; MAINT; OR FLT OPS; ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE CAPT TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE ACFT STATUS BUT RATHER THE ACFT WAS AWAITING OUR ARR AT THE GATE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.