Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We took off [and] set takeoff power.  As we were cleaning up the airplane I noticed that the ITT (Inter Turbine Temperature) on the right engine was flashing red.  I asked the First Officer to look in the QRH for a high ITT message.  He did not find any checklist that corresponded with that discrepancy.  We were on the DME ARC and I clicked off the autopilot to avoid turning towards the mountain range while we were having engine problems. We returned to land.  I asked my FO to also look up to see if there was an overweight landing checklist in the QRH; there was none. We kept the descent rate to a minimum and landed. Before I left the airplane I pulled up the information on the event and saw that on three different occasions during our flight MDC (Maintenance Diagnostic Computer) tagged the Right Engine for ITT exceedances.  I took a picture of the MDC.  I also [noted] that there were several other right engine ITT exceedances in the MDC dating all the way back to August. Maintenance; in collusion with [our] 'engineers' decided that there was no exceedances in the engine limitations and signed the aircraft off as good.  I was notified that maintenance was completed on the aircraft - which was interesting to me because there was no possible way that any maintenance could have been done in that amount of time.When I arrived to the airplane I read the sign off; which read: 'Interrogated MDC found to be within limits in accordance with CRJ 900 FIM (Fault Isolation Manual).' I pulled up the MDC and I saw that all of today's ITT exceedances had been erased from the MDC (which I also took a picture of).  I contacted maintenance with my concerns about the maintenance sign off.  The mechanic told me that they had their engineers look at it and we were good to go. That the engine didn't exceed any limitations. And we were getting the red indication because of the high elevation of the airport.  They wanted me to pack this plane full of passengers and takeoff again. In my mind this clearly was not operating at the highest level of safety (i.e.: critical airport; high elevation; heavy and having engine issues; plus our maintenance and so called 'engineers' haven't done a thing but pencil whip the issue - I want to be real clear this has little to nothing to do with our outsourced mechanic.  He was under constant guidance of our maintenance department and 'engineers'.) I explained to the maintenance controller that if I were to take off and receive another ITT message the results of the flight would be the same.  This is a critical terrain airport and for us to take the airplane with this sign off would not be operating at a high level of safety. I agreed with the maintenance controller that we should do an engine run up at takeoff power and see if the gauge went red again.  Maintenance agreed.  During the engine run up the ITT gauge went red again. I wrote the discrepancy up again.Threat: The people at this company who call themselves engineers (which should make me have confidence in that title) clearly put operational integrity over safety.  Since this incidence I have found out that there is a test titled: Power Assurance.  I would have thought that an engineering department would have considered doing that test.  Especially since I am at a critical terrain airport.  But they did no sort of test.  They conveniently found a way to pencil whip the write up. The FAA allows our company to have our own engineering team as opposed to using Bombardier.Threat: Lack of Captain's ability to communicate with the company from [this international airport].Threat: Language barrier.Threat: The MDC reported ITT exceedances since August.Threat: Complete lack of understanding from Operations about what I do as a pilot; and why I would not want to fly over critical terrain with the engine ITT flashing red.Threat: Lack of guidance in the QRH.Threat: Engine exceedance from earlier that morning just seemed to disappear.I realize I cannot trust the system. We need a better maintenance department and better [Operations Controller].


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported returning to the departure airport after receiving a high ITT warning on the right engine.