Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were made aware that we were planned to ferry an aircraft following a MX engine run-up. I was told by MX control that two of the left engine fan blades had 'dings' in them and that there was damage to the acoustical dampening material inside the cowl. After arriving to the airport; talking to the on-call mechanic; and inspecting the two damaged fan blades and the cowl ourselves; we agreed to conduct the MX run-up. The run-up was uneventful. I still had remaining questions about any limitations to fan blade damage. At first; MX control didn't know of any limitations. Then I was told .375 inches. I told them that one of the dings measured .5'x.5'; so that in itself was a 'nonstarter'. MX control then got on the line and angrily told me that there was no such limitation; I didn't need to know that info; and that they had taken aircraft with much worse damage and that if I didn't want to take the aircraft then we could take it up with our manager. I then requested a flight manager be put on the phone. A Manager was put into the conversation; then promptly 'shut down' the conversation after it was apparent that noting was going to be resolved. Twenty minutes later; the Manager called me from his personal number to discuss the matter. I requested that he have scheduling call me and we could three way the conversation so it could be recorded. We discussed the issue further and he said he was trying to get further information from other sources within the MX department regarding any limitations regarding the damage. Approximately an hour later; the Manager; myself; Maintenance Control; and a gentleman that claimed he was a CF34 'expert'; had a conference call and presented me with several pieces on information. I told them I would discuss it with my crew and call them back. As a crew; we decided that it was not safe to operate the aircraft in its current condition; and therefore refused to operate the flight on safety grounds. Our reasons were the following:1. We were getting several conflicting numbers from MX on the limits on what was an acceptable amount of damage for safe prolonged engine operation. We were told .375'; then told that was just for Part 121 passenger ops; and then that it could be blended down to .5'' as per GE. Then I believe they mentioned there was actually no limitations for damage. I find that hard to believe since every engineered material has a structural limitation before failure. Considering that the damage was .5'' unblended; and would not be blended prior to flight was not acceptable. Even if it was blended before flight; it would exceed that GE limitation.2. The larger 'ding' was a 'V' shaped chunk of the fan blade that was missing; not bent. I have no way of knowing what underlying damage might be present in that blade that is not visible to naked eye. With enough prolonged stress on that area; and without knowing the status of the structural integrity of the blade; we felt it was too much of a risk to operate that engine safely. The MX people were willing to sign it off based on cell phone pictures. Trust me when I say that seeing the damage in pictures and seeing in person don't even compare. It's hard to gain perspective from a cell phone picture.3. The damage to the acoustical liner and within the cowling was concerning. Whatever FOD was encountered was enough to create over a .5'' hole in the acoustical liner inside the cowling that appeared to penetrate the protective Kevlar shroud in the housing. All of these factors played into our decision as a crew that the aircraft could not be operated safely. After we told the parties jointly in a conference call; the CF34 'expert' demanded to know my background and how I could make that determination. As PIC; it is my job to take all of the information that is presented to me; and make an informed and safe decision. Certain personnel in your MX department do not like to give out information. This particular Maintenance Controller in particular. I don't like feeling like I'm being lied to; or that information is being kept from me. His accusation that 'I don't need to know' certain information is false and dangerous. It makes it look like he is hiding something. Second; I don't like how he talks to pilots; it is completely unprofessional. We can disagree and still remain professional. The same goes for the other gentleman and self-proclaimed CF34 'expert'. While he was professional in our initial conversation; his tone and antics turned sour after we refused the aircraft. I do not appreciate having my qualifications; experience; or judgment called into question like that. I will not be pressured into taking an aircraft that I do not think is safe to fly; and there were certain individuals that were trying to pressure me into accepting this aircraft by thinly veiled threats or coercion. I highly encourage the individuals on the ASAP committee to review all of the recorded conversations that took place between myself and the people involved. We also has several more pictures.


Second narrative: Our flight was not operated and felt that further inspection and closer analysis by a company mechanic with experience in fan blade damage could have been conducted rule out the potential for further damage and help assess risk analysis. Since multiple 'limits' and 'no limits' were given to the flight crew by maintenance control it was difficult to assess the risk. In regards to one limit given by Maintenance Control of 0.375 inch fan blade nick for revenue flight; our damage was 0.5 inch and exceeded the 0.375 inch limitation by 33%. Better guidance and or limits could be given to help Flight Crew/Maintenance in the decision making process.


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew refused an aircraft for ferry with apparent left engine FOD damage because Company Maintenance Control gave differencing values for FAA acceptable non blended fan blade and inner wall puncture damage.