Narrative:

Enroute to ZZZ; we called maintenance to tell them that the right 10th stage bleed indication was reading 0; however; right pack pressure was normal. Maintenance indicated it was probably an indication error and we would defer it on the ground. During the descent; the right 10th stage manifold pressure increased to 85 psi then back to 0 psi. Once we landed; the indication returned to normal. Maintenance deferred the indication under right pack supply pressure. I questioned maintenance; and told him I thought that was called 10th stage manifold pressure and that the indication inside the pack itself was called the supply pressure. He said I was incorrect and that was the correct deferral. I contacted our maintenance in ZZZ1 and they said that it was definitely the correct deferral. I talked to 2 maintenance controllers and they both said the same thing. My first officer then tried to convince me that I had my terms mixed up. I accepted the deferral and we departed. When studying for my ground school; I noticed that the terminology that I was using between the right stage 10th manifold pressure and the right pack supply pressure was correct and not as maintenance and my first officer had thought. I called our FSDO and program manager. The program manager said he would investigate and let me know in a few days. My question to him was; 'can the 10th stage indication psi be deferred and is maintenance confusing this with the pack supply pressure?' I should have brought a chief pilot and/or the program manager into the discussion. Since maintenance was so absolutely sure; I did not press the issue. I gave the company the aircraft number and date to make sure the aircraft is 100%. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he accepted the cl-65 (crj-200) aircraft with the 10th stage fluctuation deferred as a pack pressure indication problem; because everyone else was saying he had his terms mixed up. He was also on his last leg of a 14-hour day. But the cockpit EFIS system synoptic page shows pack pressure in a square window and the 10th stage bleed pressure on a separate line below. So he believes there is a misunderstanding in maintenance of the MEL; as it relates to pack pressure versus 10-th stage bleed pressure indications. Reporter stated he could not find any MEL deferral allowed for a 10-th stage bleed fluctuation problem. He is waiting for a reply from his chief pilot regarding the difference of opinions on the matter.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A pilot of a CRJ-200 calls Maintenance Control to inform them of the right engine 10-th stage bleed pressure indication fluctuating between 0 to 85 PSI. Pilot later disagrees with Maintenance Control deferring indication as a pack supply pressure indication.

Narrative: Enroute to ZZZ; we called Maintenance to tell them that the right 10th stage bleed indication was reading 0; however; right pack pressure was normal. Maintenance indicated it was probably an indication error and we would defer it on the ground. During the descent; the right 10th stage manifold pressure increased to 85 PSI then back to 0 PSI. Once we landed; the indication returned to normal. Maintenance deferred the indication under right pack supply pressure. I questioned Maintenance; and told him I thought that was called 10th stage manifold pressure and that the indication inside the pack itself was called the supply pressure. He said I was incorrect and that was the correct deferral. I contacted our Maintenance in ZZZ1 and they said that it was definitely the correct deferral. I talked to 2 Maintenance Controllers and they both said the same thing. My First Officer then tried to convince me that I had my terms mixed up. I accepted the deferral and we departed. When studying for my Ground School; I noticed that the terminology that I was using between the right stage 10th manifold pressure and the right pack supply pressure was correct and not as Maintenance and my First Officer had thought. I called our FSDO and Program Manager. The Program Manager said he would investigate and let me know in a few days. My question to him was; 'Can the 10th stage indication PSI be deferred and is Maintenance confusing this with the pack supply pressure?' I should have brought a Chief Pilot and/or the Program Manager into the discussion. Since Maintenance was so absolutely sure; I did not press the issue. I gave the company the aircraft number and date to make sure the aircraft is 100%. Callback conversation with Reporter revealed the following information: Reporter stated he accepted the CL-65 (CRJ-200) aircraft with the 10th stage fluctuation deferred as a pack pressure indication problem; because everyone else was saying he had his terms mixed up. He was also on his last leg of a 14-hour day. But the cockpit EFIS system synoptic page shows pack pressure in a square window and the 10th stage bleed pressure on a separate line below. So he believes there is a misunderstanding in maintenance of the MEL; as it relates to pack pressure versus 10-th stage bleed pressure indications. Reporter stated he could not find any MEL deferral allowed for a 10-th stage bleed fluctuation problem. He is waiting for a reply from his Chief Pilot regarding the difference of opinions on the matter.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.