Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Total 3200
Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Logbook Entry; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
The following pertains to Aircraft X; a CRJ-700 aircraft; in December 2012; Flight ZZZ to ZZZ1. Upon arriving to the aircraft for flight; I performed my preflight inspection. I noted a leak coming from the Aft Fuel Drain Mast at a rate in excess of five drops per minute. After notifying the Captain; he notified Dispatch via ACARs of our situation. Time went by and nothing came from the notification. It just happened that there was a broken Embraer aircraft in ZZZ along with two company mechanics. They checked out the situation and the leak had ceased from the aft mast. They also noted a Time Deferral (AMM Task 28-11-00) that had been active since May 2012; pertaining to a daily inspection in regards to the leak. Nevertheless; the fuel leak was excessive and both I and [the] Captain thought the leak warranted another look. So Captain balanced out the Aircraft Logbook with an 'entered in error' and we departed for ZZZ1. Upon arrival in ZZZ1; I hopped out of the aircraft and went back to the drain mast to check for a leak. Not only was it leaking; but there was a trail of fuel and a puddle. That was written-up in detail; about the excessive fuel leakage; the puddle and trail of fuel; into the Logbook. The mechanics arrived to look at our oil situation (to be covered a little later) and the fuel leak. They simply balanced out [signed-off] the Logbook; took no corrective action and once again cited the Time Deferral. We questioned how a Time Deferral; could be active for almost seven months. To which the response we received was; 'I don't know.'  We also asked when it might be fixed; getting the same carefree response. This situation is in clear violation of the Time Deferral; so Captain and I did not feel comfortable taking the aircraft. We refused it and eventually took another aircraft back to ZZZ a few hours later. The apathy and oversight of this situation is appalling. According to the Time Deferral we had a running leak and based upon the location we have to look under Note Number 4. Note-4 states the following: 'Repair the leak immediately.' Even if we had 'up to four drops'; which is defined as a 'Drip' on Page Number 2 of the Time Deferral; it states the following on Page Number 3; Note-5 (Note-5 is based on the location of the fuel leak column; in this situation it is 'Fuel drains under the fuselage and aft of the [main] wheel well of the Time Deferral: 'Inspect underside of the fuselage and ensure no traces of fuel are present. If no traces of fuel are present on the underside of the fuselage; no immediate repair action required. Continue monitoring leak between flights and repair leak at the end of the day. If traces of fuel are present on the underside of the fuselage; repair leak immediately.' This Time Deferral; as applicable to this situation; is not being used correctly. It is not a crutch to keep an aircraft that is leaking fuel in service for seven months. It is the age old adage of; 'If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it; does it make a sound.' In this case; if a Mechanic isn't there to see a leak; but the pilots are; does the airplane still leak? Yes it does and it needs to be repaired; especially when a controlling document and two professional pilots observe the situation unfolding. We understand fuel evaporates at a quick pace; but it doesn't mean there wasn't fuel. In addition it helps to use common sense when it comes to daily inspection. Going out to a static airplane that hasn't flown that day does not constitute a proper daily inspection. In regards to the second issue of this CRJ-700 aircraft we had on flight ZZZ-ZZZ1; what our FOM-1 calls an oil leak (Page 26; Abnormal ENG section). When we taxied out; with both engines running because of our short taxi; I normally check the oil level (it is part of the AFTER START and the BEFORE TAKEOFF Checklists to check the EICAS; the Menu Page is part of the whole EICAS System and therefore should be checked) and I noted the quantity to be 42% on the left side and 46% on the right. When we leveled off at cruise I checked the quantity about an hour later and it was at 40% on the left side. Before our decent into ZZZ1 I checked it one last time and noted a quantity of 36%. It took us two hours and 49 minutes from OUT to IN. That gives us a rate of 6% drop in under three hours; which according to FOM-1 that defines a leak. It was written-up and the mechanics simply topped off the oil quantity. No attempt was made to find the leak; once again just a quick fix was utilized to get the aircraft out. These issues are like notes from the aircraft; telling us there are problems. Small issues in comparison to what those issues can lead to if given the time and opportunity to develop. I truly hope change comes from this and light has been brought to this. Aircraft X is not the only CRJ-700 that has this issue. If it can be nipped in the bud now; it will only save time; money and promote safety down the road. In closing I want to part with a quote from Senior Level Management's Commitment to Safety and Security about Safety and Security are core values of our airline. For that reason; our Air Carrier complies with all applicable regulatory requirements and standards. The issue occurred due to a lack of understanding per the Time Deferral and perhaps incorrect precedence being set by Maintenance when it comes to fixing our aircraft. The best way to avoid a recurrence of this issue would be to have Maintenance be more preventative and more astute when it comes to pilot write-ups. I am fully aware that not all write-ups require immediate attention; but those involving key parts of the plane (i.e. fuel; oil and especially when the fuel line in question runs through the pressure bulkhead of the aircraft); Maintenance should take a longer look then to simply and incorrectly pass the buck off. An aircraft is not meant to fly with a Time Deferral indefinitely. A Time Deferral is there to allow the aircraft to be fixed at a later time at a Maintenance Base. Besides; this Time Deferral was moot simply because it was followed incorrectly.
Reporter stated this was the third CRJ-700 with similar fuel leak issues where his Air Carrier is using a Time Deferral that is not an MEL; or CDL deferral. There are two Aft Drain Masts; aft of the Main Wheel wells. The first Aft drain mast handles fuel from the wing tanks and the second drain mast; approximately 10-feet further aft; is the one with fuel collecting and dumping from the engines and APU that he is referring to. The last two CRJ-700 aircraft had fuel leaking inside an APU shrouded fuel line connection where the fuel line bends and transitions from the pressure bulkhead to the unpressurized tail compartment. Not a flex line connection. The first fuel leak came from a CVG actuator on a Fuel Metering Unit (FMU). None of these leaks could have been deferred under an MEL. Leaking fuel is pooling in some sort of collector and dumping on landing or during takeoff.
December 2012 I picked up a CRJ-700 aircraft at ZZZ for a flight to ZZZ1. During the pre-flight inspection the First Officer (F/O) found evidence of a pretty good fuel leak from the Aft Fuel Drain Mast. There was a puddle of fuel on the ground; and a trail of fuel following the aircraft track during taxi-in and fuel was still leaking enough that his hand had a strong odor of jet fuel when he got back to the cockpit. I wrote-up the fuel leak and when Maintenance arrived they looked at the leak and the aircraft Logbook and told me the leak was already [on a Time Deferral] and I could sign the Logbook 'entered in error.' He said it was leaking less than four drops per minute and we were good to go. I signed the Logbook and we flew to ZZZ1. I had the F/O check the leak again when we arrived in ZZZ1 and it was leaking far in excess of four drops per minute. I wrote up the fuel leak again and Maintenance came out and again said it met the limitations of the Time Deferral. By the time they got there most of the excess fuel had already leaked out and the drop rate was less the four drops per minute which is within the limitations of the Time Deferral; but it was not within those limits when we first arrived at the gate. The Maintenance Manual (M/M) lists requirements for the Time Deferral that specifies when repairs must be made. At the lowest rate of two drops per minute; repair is required to be accomplished the next time the aircraft goes through a Maintenance hub like ZZZ2 or ZZZ3. The Time Deferral had been open since May [2012]!! For this reason I refused to fly the aircraft. It remained in ZZZ1 and was flown out the next morning. Neither my F/O nor I could determine if the fuel leak had been repaired prior to the first departure the next morning. How many times has this aircraft gone through a Maintenance base within the last six or seven months since the Time Deferral was issued? What is the definition of 'temporary?' Why is an aircraft flying for over six months with a fuel leak? Does it matter what the meaning of 'is' is? When will this leak be repaired? If I am assigned this aircraft in the future and the Time Deferral has not been repaired I will again refuse to fly the aircraft. Slow response by Maintenance. [Recommend] repairing the aircraft in accordance with the Time Deferral.
Two pilots report about fuel leaking from the most Aft Drain Mast on three CRJ-700 aircraft that have been deferred under a company Time Deferral that would not be allowed under an MEL or CDL deferral.