Narrative:

I was assigned a ferry flight. The aircraft had received a repair to the left leading edge of the wing; due to a wing overheat situation that occurred. An engineering order had been complied with and the ferry flight was signed off. In reviewing the maintenance logbook; I began to question why the wing anti-ice system had not been deactivated and deferred as a result of the overheat situation. The crew had to abort their takeoff due to the warning message they received and it caused damage to the leading edge due to the heat. I called maintenance control several times that morning to get clarification on the history and repair work and to understand why they hadn't deferred the anti-ice system. The weather that morning was clear and there was no risk of encountering icing conditions; maintenance told me to not use the anti-ice system and that it didn't need to be deferred because as long as we didn't use it; it wasn't a problem and that was why they needed me to ferry the aircraft; so they could do further troubleshooting. I explained my understanding of MEL and that it didn't make sense that in the write-ups there was no mention of the anti-ice system being looked at; since it was the root of the problem that led to the leading edge damage. Maintenance reassured me that it was legal to ferry the aircraft and that it was airworthy and that as long as we didn't use the system; there was no problem. He said that was the point of the ferry permit and the MEL didn't apply to part 91. My understanding is that if there is an MEL; it has to be followed; whether part 91 or 121. But maintenance said no. I still felt uneasy about the explanation; so then called the chief pilot on duty so he could give me further direction and insight. I read the chief pilot the write-ups and corrective actions sequentially and explained to him my concern that the anti-ice system hadn't been attended to and that the ferry flight seemed to pertain more to the leading edge work that had been completed. I told him that there was no mention of the MEL for the anti-ice and that maintenance basically told me that as long as I didn't use it; there would be no problems. My understanding of an MEL makes me think that unless a system is known to be operative; then it has to be placarded and rendered inoperative. The chief pilot understood where I was coming from; but after thinking things over and hearing what maintenance said; also agreed that it was okay to do the ferry so that more troubleshooting could be performed. Based on the input from maintenance control; assurance from the chief pilot that everything was in order; and my own belief that the aircraft was safe to operate; I completed the ferry flight and turned in the maintenance log.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the damage incurred to the left wing was caused by the wing anti-ice system malfunction on takeoff from a previous flight. The aircraft received an interim repair to allow a maintenance ferry to a maintenance facility for a permanent repair. The logbook was cleared for the ferry flight but the wing anti-ice system was not rendered inoperative per the MEL and no circuit breakers were pulled. The reporter noted that the overheat warning the previous crew received was triggered by temperatures at or above 300 degrees F and caused wing damage and it was not an unreasonable possibility that a 14TH stage valve may have stuck open; overheating the left wing. No deferred item was made and the ferry flight was operated.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ200 INCURRED L WING DAMAGE DUE TO WING ANTI-ICE MALFUNCTION. ACFT WAS MAINT FERRIED TO A MAINT FACILITY WITH WING ANTI-ICE NOT DEFERRED OR RENDERED INOP.

Narrative: I WAS ASSIGNED A FERRY FLIGHT. THE AIRCRAFT HAD RECEIVED A REPAIR TO THE LEFT LEADING EDGE OF THE WING; DUE TO A WING OVERHEAT SITUATION THAT OCCURRED. AN ENGINEERING ORDER HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH AND THE FERRY FLIGHT WAS SIGNED OFF. IN REVIEWING THE MAINTENANCE LOGBOOK; I BEGAN TO QUESTION WHY THE WING ANTI-ICE SYSTEM HAD NOT BEEN DEACTIVATED AND DEFERRED AS A RESULT OF THE OVERHEAT SITUATION. THE CREW HAD TO ABORT THEIR TAKEOFF DUE TO THE WARNING MESSAGE THEY RECEIVED AND IT CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE LEADING EDGE DUE TO THE HEAT. I CALLED MAINTENANCE CONTROL SEVERAL TIMES THAT MORNING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THE HISTORY AND REPAIR WORK AND TO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HADN'T DEFERRED THE ANTI-ICE SYSTEM. THE WEATHER THAT MORNING WAS CLEAR AND THERE WAS NO RISK OF ENCOUNTERING ICING CONDITIONS; MAINTENANCE TOLD ME TO NOT USE THE ANTI-ICE SYSTEM AND THAT IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE DEFERRED BECAUSE AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T USE IT; IT WASN'T A PROBLEM AND THAT WAS WHY THEY NEEDED ME TO FERRY THE AIRCRAFT; SO THEY COULD DO FURTHER TROUBLESHOOTING. I EXPLAINED MY UNDERSTANDING OF MEL AND THAT IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE THAT IN THE WRITE-UPS THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE ANTI-ICE SYSTEM BEING LOOKED AT; SINCE IT WAS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM THAT LED TO THE LEADING EDGE DAMAGE. MAINTENANCE REASSURED ME THAT IT WAS LEGAL TO FERRY THE AIRCRAFT AND THAT IT WAS AIRWORTHY AND THAT AS LONG AS WE DIDN'T USE THE SYSTEM; THERE WAS NO PROBLEM. HE SAID THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE FERRY PERMIT AND THE MEL DIDN'T APPLY TO PART 91. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF THERE IS AN MEL; IT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED; WHETHER PART 91 OR 121. BUT MAINTENANCE SAID NO. I STILL FELT UNEASY ABOUT THE EXPLANATION; SO THEN CALLED THE CHIEF PILOT ON DUTY SO HE COULD GIVE ME FURTHER DIRECTION AND INSIGHT. I READ THE CHIEF PILOT THE WRITE-UPS AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS SEQUENTIALLY AND EXPLAINED TO HIM MY CONCERN THAT THE ANTI-ICE SYSTEM HADN'T BEEN ATTENDED TO AND THAT THE FERRY FLIGHT SEEMED TO PERTAIN MORE TO THE LEADING EDGE WORK THAT HAD BEEN COMPLETED. I TOLD HIM THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE MEL FOR THE ANTI-ICE AND THAT MAINTENANCE BASICALLY TOLD ME THAT AS LONG AS I DIDN'T USE IT; THERE WOULD BE NO PROBLEMS. MY UNDERSTANDING OF AN MEL MAKES ME THINK THAT UNLESS A SYSTEM IS KNOWN TO BE OPERATIVE; THEN IT HAS TO BE PLACARDED AND RENDERED INOPERATIVE. THE CHIEF PILOT UNDERSTOOD WHERE I WAS COMING FROM; BUT AFTER THINKING THINGS OVER AND HEARING WHAT MAINTENANCE SAID; ALSO AGREED THAT IT WAS OKAY TO DO THE FERRY SO THAT MORE TROUBLESHOOTING COULD BE PERFORMED. BASED ON THE INPUT FROM MAINTENANCE CONTROL; ASSURANCE FROM THE CHIEF PILOT THAT EVERYTHING WAS IN ORDER; AND MY OWN BELIEF THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS SAFE TO OPERATE; I COMPLETED THE FERRY FLIGHT AND TURNED IN THE MAINTENANCE LOG.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE DAMAGE INCURRED TO THE L WING WAS CAUSED BY THE WING ANTI-ICE SYS MALFUNCTION ON TKOF FROM A PREVIOUS FLT. THE ACFT RECEIVED AN INTERIM REPAIR TO ALLOW A MAINT FERRY TO A MAINT FACILITY FOR A PERMANENT REPAIR. THE LOGBOOK WAS CLRED FOR THE FERRY FLT BUT THE WING ANTI-ICE SYS WAS NOT RENDERED INOP PER THE MEL AND NO CIRCUIT BREAKERS WERE PULLED. THE RPTR NOTED THAT THE OVERHEAT WARNING THE PREVIOUS CREW RECEIVED WAS TRIGGERED BY TEMPS AT OR ABOVE 300 DEGS F AND CAUSED WING DAMAGE AND IT WAS NOT AN UNREASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT A 14TH STAGE VALVE MAY HAVE STUCK OPEN; OVERHEATING THE L WING. NO DEFERRED ITEM WAS MADE AND THE FERRY FLT WAS OPERATED.

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.