Narrative:

Departing we got a left bleed caution message. [We] complied with company QRH; which restricted us to 31;000 ft and to remain clear of icing conditions. Since our destination was cat ii; we contacted dispatch. While attempting contact; we got a brake temperature warning message. Brake indicator showed 20 which made no sense since almost no brakes were used taxiing for takeoff. Again at 7;000 ft we complied with company QRH. Establishing contact with dispatch; we diverted back to the departure airport due to icing conditions in the destination area. The fact that this was the '3rd'' time this had been written up in the last three days makes one wonder how seriously the prior write-ups were taken. Is three the magic number before anything is taken seriously or is completion the priority over proper maintenance and safety? A bleed problem followed immediately by an extremely high brake temperature for no reason is serious. Little things one right after the other can soon add up to something big. The emphasis appears to be how quickly the aircraft can be put back into service with a quick fix versus any real troubleshooting. The problem appears to be inadequate staffing and pressure on the maintenance personnel to meet completion goals. Proof of this was when we contacted dispatch and were put on hold because maintenance was backed up with other calls.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ700 BLEED AIR EICAS message alerted after takeoff and because of icing conditions at the destination airport the crew returned to land at the departure airport. A Brake Temperature warning alerted but was assumed to be false because of light brake usage.

Narrative: Departing we got a left bleed caution message. [We] complied with company QRH; which restricted us to 31;000 FT and to remain clear of icing conditions. Since our destination was Cat II; we contacted Dispatch. While attempting contact; we got a brake temperature warning message. Brake indicator showed 20 which made no sense since almost no brakes were used taxiing for takeoff. Again at 7;000 FT we complied with company QRH. Establishing contact with Dispatch; we diverted back to the departure airport due to icing conditions in the destination area. The fact that this was the '3rd'' time this had been written up in the last three days makes one wonder how seriously the prior write-ups were taken. Is three the magic number before anything is taken seriously or is completion the priority over proper maintenance and safety? A bleed problem followed immediately by an extremely high brake temperature for no reason is serious. Little things one right after the other can soon add up to something big. The emphasis appears to be how quickly the aircraft can be put back into service with a quick fix versus any real troubleshooting. The problem appears to be inadequate staffing and pressure on the maintenance personnel to meet completion goals. Proof of this was when we contacted Dispatch and were put on hold because maintenance was backed up with other calls.

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.