Narrative:

During pre-flight duties my first officer notified me that the left telescoping anti-ice duct cover was damaged. Upon self inspection I noticed that the forward portion of the cover was missing from the forward screws on. Upon review of the aircraft logbook I saw that cdl 57-1 had been applied. After reading the cdl 57-1 I noticed that the cdl made no mention of leaving 'damaged' parts of the aircraft still attached to the airframe. The cdl specifically stated that it was to be applied for 'missing' or 'removed' anti-ice covers. I contacted dispatch via my cell phone and requested a patch to maintenance control. I discussed the cdl and compliance and stated that in the 7 years I've been on the aircraft; we do not conduct revenue flights with damaged pieces of aircraft still attached to the airframe. Especially if the cdl specifically states that a procedure exists for said damaged components to be removed from the airframe. In all my experience whenever an airframe component is damaged and the cdl allows us to operate the aircraft without the component we apply the appropriate cdl and remove the damaged component. After discussing this with maintenance control he told me to 'write it up and put it in the log book' and that he would contact contract maintenance and have the damaged component removed to comply with the cdl 57-1.we ended our conversation and I continued with my pre-flight duties. About 5 minutes later I received a message via ACARS asking if I could call maintenance control back. I complied and in the ensuing conversation maintenance control stated that they had 'received a deferral and issued the cdl 57-1.' he further stated that he 'would not be calling contract maintenance out to remove the panel;' and then he stated that he would 'have line maintenance in our destination come out and remove the panel so as to comply with the cdl.' I thought this strange and when I queried him he again informed me that he would not call contract maintenance. I feel that I was somewhat 'bullied' into taking this aircraft and in hindsight I really felt that I should have 'stuck to my guns' on this one. In the future if I have a damaged airframe component; and the cdl calls for this component to be removed or be missing to be in compliance with the cdl; and maintenance control refuses to comply with the cdl I will refuse the aircraft for revenue service until the cdl has been complied with as stated in the crj MEL/cdl manual. I can only speculate that maintenance procedures affecting damaged aircraft components were improperly applied. I also felt that I demonstrated a somewhat 'resigned' attitude. I should have applied myself in a more assertive manner.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ700 Captain is informed of CDL 57-1 for the left telescoping anti-ice duct cover. The forward part of the cover has departed the aircraft and the remainder is still attached. The reporter believes that the entire cover needs to be removed to comply with the CDL (Configuration Deviation List).

Narrative: During pre-flight duties my First Officer notified me that the left telescoping anti-ice duct cover was damaged. Upon self inspection I noticed that the forward portion of the cover was missing from the forward screws on. Upon review of the aircraft logbook I saw that CDL 57-1 had been applied. After reading the CDL 57-1 I noticed that the CDL made no mention of leaving 'damaged' parts of the aircraft still attached to the airframe. The CDL specifically stated that it was to be applied for 'missing' or 'removed' anti-ice covers. I contacted Dispatch via my cell phone and requested a patch to Maintenance Control. I discussed the CDL and compliance and stated that in the 7 years I've been on the aircraft; we do not conduct revenue flights with damaged pieces of aircraft still attached to the airframe. Especially if the CDL specifically states that a procedure exists for said damaged components to be removed from the airframe. In all my experience whenever an airframe component is damaged and the CDL allows us to operate the aircraft without the component we apply the appropriate CDL and remove the damaged component. After discussing this with Maintenance Control he told me to 'write it up and put it in the log book' and that he would contact contract maintenance and have the damaged component removed to comply with the CDL 57-1.We ended our conversation and I continued with my pre-flight duties. About 5 minutes later I received a message via ACARS asking if I could call Maintenance Control back. I complied and in the ensuing conversation Maintenance Control stated that they had 'received a deferral and issued the CDL 57-1.' he further stated that he 'would not be calling contract maintenance out to remove the panel;' and then he stated that he would 'have line maintenance in our destination come out and remove the panel so as to comply with the CDL.' I thought this strange and when I queried him he again informed me that he would not call contract maintenance. I feel that I was somewhat 'bullied' into taking this aircraft and in hindsight I really felt that I should have 'stuck to my guns' on this one. In the future if I have a damaged airframe component; and the CDL calls for this component to be removed or be missing to be in compliance with the CDL; and Maintenance Control refuses to comply with the CDL I will refuse the aircraft for revenue service until the CDL has been complied with as stated in the CRJ MEL/CDL Manual. I can only speculate that maintenance procedures affecting damaged aircraft components were improperly applied. I also felt that I demonstrated a somewhat 'resigned' attitude. I should have applied myself in a more assertive manner.

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.