Narrative:

On 10/tue/06; I picked up aircraft XXXX in ZZZ1. Were flying to ZZZ2 for the overnight. When the first officer checked the oil; he noticed that the right engine took 1.5 qts and the replenishment tank was empty. I looked at the maintenance can and realized that the right engine had had approximately 7.5 qts added in about 3 days. I called maintenance and a mechanic came out; refilled the replenishment tank; and visually inspected the right engine oil. He said the engine was still within limits on oil consumption and time. We flew to ZZZ2 with no problems. We did notice that the right fan gauge was between 1.4 and 1.1. The next morning we flew the aircraft from ZZZ2 to ZZZ3. In flight; we noticed the fan vibe gauge on the right engine was up to 1.9 and the itt was 858. I reduced power so not to exceed 860. Once cruise thrust was set; the itt was 844; but the fan vibe gauge stayed at 1.9. Once in ZZZ3 called maintenance and told them the concerns I had with the oil consumption and engine indications. Maintenance had us check the oil on the right engine. It took another 5 quarts. In 2.5 hours; it should use another .5 quarts. That would be 1 quart in 5 hours; which is our limit for oil consumption. Also; this engine was changed one week ago. Maintenance had company mechanics look for external leaks. There were none. Therefore; maintenance had the company mechanics sign it off good. I called the chief pilot's office and talked to mr X. He agreed with me that there could be an internal problem. Maintenance was going to let the aircraft fly all day with nothing more than an external check; and then look at it in ZZZ4. 5 hours later mr Y called me. I told him everything as I stated above. He also agreed that something is not right with the engine. Therefore; the plane was grounded. My concern is why maintenance is pencil whipping aircraft back into service without thorough inspections. The extent of maintenance's inspection was to look for oil leaks. The fan vibe rise and itt rise were totally ignored. This is becoming the norm here; to simply sign it off without a thorough inspection. I believe this is such a blatant disregard for aircraft safety; that the FAA should be notified and have maintenance explain why a thorough inspection of this engine has not taken place in regards to oil consumption from previous days and the fact that the engine had been recently replaced. Also; when maintenance filled our replenishment oil tank; they left the cap off when they were done. What's going on in maintenance?callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the airplane was refused for the following reasons: right engine high oil consumption out of limits; fan vibration indication high; and inter turbine temperature high; making the engine inter turbine temperature limited. The main concern was the high oil consumption out of limits with no effort on the part of maintenance to determine the cause other than the signoff 'visual check of right engine for oil leaks. None noted.' the reporter was unable to follow-up on the airplane after the refusal and has no knowledge of the fix if any.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ200 WITH CHRONIC R ENG OIL CONSUMPTION RPTS IS REFUSED BY CAPT. ENGINE BEING PUSHED FROM STATION WITH OIL CONSUMPTION OUT OF LIMITS. RPTS ALL SIGNED OFF AS 'INSPECTED ENGINE NO EXTERNAL LEAKS NOTED.'

Narrative: ON 10/TUE/06; I PICKED UP ACFT XXXX IN ZZZ1. WERE FLYING TO ZZZ2 FOR THE OVERNIGHT. WHEN THE FO CHKED THE OIL; HE NOTICED THAT THE R ENGINE TOOK 1.5 QTS AND THE REPLENISHMENT TANK WAS EMPTY. I LOOKED AT THE MAINT CAN AND REALIZED THAT THE R ENGINE HAD HAD APPROX 7.5 QTS ADDED IN ABOUT 3 DAYS. I CALLED MAINT AND A MECHANIC CAME OUT; REFILLED THE REPLENISHMENT TANK; AND VISUALLY INSPECTED THE R ENGINE OIL. HE SAID THE ENGINE WAS STILL WITHIN LIMITS ON OIL CONSUMPTION AND TIME. WE FLEW TO ZZZ2 WITH NO PROBS. WE DID NOTICE THAT THE R FAN GAUGE WAS BETWEEN 1.4 AND 1.1. THE NEXT MORNING WE FLEW THE ACFT FROM ZZZ2 TO ZZZ3. IN FLT; WE NOTICED THE FAN VIBE GAUGE ON THE R ENG WAS UP TO 1.9 AND THE ITT WAS 858. I REDUCED PWR SO NOT TO EXCEED 860. ONCE CRUISE THRUST WAS SET; THE ITT WAS 844; BUT THE FAN VIBE GAUGE STAYED AT 1.9. ONCE IN ZZZ3 CALLED MAINT AND TOLD THEM THE CONCERNS I HAD WITH THE OIL CONSUMPTION AND ENGINE INDICATIONS. MAINT HAD US CHECK THE OIL ON THE R ENGINE. IT TOOK ANOTHER 5 QUARTS. IN 2.5 HRS; IT SHOULD USE ANOTHER .5 QUARTS. THAT WOULD BE 1 QUART IN 5 HRS; WHICH IS OUR LIMIT FOR OIL CONSUMPTION. ALSO; THIS ENGINE WAS CHANGED ONE WEEK AGO. MAINT HAD COMPANY MECHS LOOK FOR EXTERNAL LEAKS. THERE WERE NONE. THEREFORE; MAINT HAD THE COMPANY MECHANICS SIGN IT OFF GOOD. I CALLED THE CHIEF PLT'S OFFICE AND TALKED TO MR X. HE AGREED WITH ME THAT THERE COULD BE AN INTERNAL PROB. MAINT WAS GOING TO LET THE ACFT FLY ALL DAY WITH NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXTERNAL CHK; AND THEN LOOK AT IT IN ZZZ4. 5 HRS LATER MR Y CALLED ME. I TOLD HIM EVERYTHING AS I STATED ABOVE. HE ALSO AGREED THAT SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT WITH THE ENGINE. THEREFORE; THE PLANE WAS GROUNDED. MY CONCERN IS WHY MAINT IS PENCIL WHIPPING ACFT BACK INTO SVC WITHOUT THOROUGH INSPECTIONS. THE EXTENT OF MAINT'S INSPECTION WAS TO LOOK FOR OIL LEAKS. THE FAN VIBE RISE AND ITT RISE WERE TOTALLY IGNORED. THIS IS BECOMING THE NORM HERE; TO SIMPLY SIGN IT OFF WITHOUT A THOROUGH INSPECTION. I BELIEVE THIS IS SUCH A BLATANT DISREGARD FOR ACFT SAFETY; THAT THE FAA SHOULD BE NOTIFIED AND HAVE MAINT EXPLAIN WHY A THOROUGH INSPECTION OF THIS ENGINE HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE IN REGARDS TO OIL CONSUMPTION FROM PREVIOUS DAYS AND THE FACT THAT THE ENGINE HAD BEEN RECENTLY REPLACED. ALSO; WHEN MAINT FILLED OUR REPLENISHMENT OIL TANK; THEY LEFT THE CAP OFF WHEN THEY WERE DONE. WHAT'S GOING ON IN MAINT?CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE AIRPLANE WAS REFUSED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: R ENG HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION OUT OF LIMITS; FAN VIBRATION INDICATION HIGH; AND INTER TURBINE TEMP HIGH; MAKING THE ENGINE INTER TURBINE TEMP LIMITED. THE MAIN CONCERN WAS THE HIGH OIL CONSUMPTION OUT OF LIMITS WITH NO EFFORT ON THE PART OF MAINT TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OTHER THAN THE SIGNOFF 'VISUAL CHK OF R ENG FOR OIL LEAKS. NONE NOTED.' THE RPTR WAS UNABLE TO FOLLOW-UP ON THE AIRPLANE AFTER THE REFUSAL AND HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE FIX IF ANY.

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.