A CRJ200 WAS DISPATCHED WITH #1 ENGINE THRUST REVERSER DEFERRED INOP IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL. MEL ALLOWS DEFERRAL IF THERE IS NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE THRUST REVERSER. THRUST REVERSER CASCADE VANES WERE CRACKED.

Narrative

ARRIVED AT THE ACFT TO FIND THAT THE #1 THRUST REVERSER (T/R) HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP BY A PREVIOUS CREW FOR REMAINING IN THE UNLOCKED POS. MECHANICS WERE ON THE ACFT; HAD THE L ENGINE COWLING OPEN AND WERE ATTEMPTING TO MANUALLY CLOSE AND LOCK THE THRUST REVERSER. THEY WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN CLOSING THE REVERSER; FINDING THAT THE THRUST REVERSER HAD NOT BEEN LUBRICATED; WAS MIS-RIGGED AND HAD 'CRACKS' IN THE UPPER CASCADE VANE ASSEMBLY (THE VENETIAN BLIND LOOKING CURVED ASSEMBLY THAT DIRECTS THE AIRFLOW FORWARD ON THIS TYPE OF THRUST REVERSER). SEVERAL HOURS PASSED. COMPANY DID NOT CANCEL THE FLT; NOR DID THEY PROVIDE ANOTHER ACFT. DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR OPS DEPARTMENT REVEALED THAT MAINT HAD RPTED CRACKS TO THE #1 CASCADE VANE ASSEMBLY. FINALLY; ABOUT THREE HOURS LATER; ANOTHER MAINT CREW ARRIVED WHO USED A HAMMER TO GET THE REVERSER ASSEMBLY TO STOW; AND WHO PINNED THE ASSEMBLY CLOSED. THE ACFT WAS RELEASED BY MAINT TO FLY REVENUE OPS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF OUR MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST (MEL); ITEM XX-XX-XX. MEL XX-XX-XX; THRUST REVERSER SYSTEMS ALLOW FOR DISPATCH WITH ONE THRUST REVERSER INOPERATIVE PROVIDED; PER SUB PARAGRAPH A): 'THERE IS NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE THRUST REVERSER SYSTEM.' IN DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR OPS DEPARTMENT; I EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT CRACKS TO THE CASCADE VANES CONSTITUTED STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE THRUST REVERSER SYSTEM AND THAT THE ACFT WAS THUS UN-AIRWORTHY. THESE DISCUSSIONS ESCALATED; WITH THE ADDITIONAL PRESSURE OF LOCAL OPS PERSONNEL AT ZZZ; WHO WHERE PRESSURING ME TO BOARD AN AIRPLANE I CONSIDERED UNFIT TO FLY. I WAS CONTACTED BY MAINT CTL WHO INFORMED ME THAT THE CASCADE VANES WERE NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE THRUST REVERSER STRUCTURE AND THAT I WAS GOOD TO GO. I REFUSED TO FLY THE ACFT WITHOUT SPEAKING FIRST WITH A CHIEF PLT; AND ADDITIONAL; HIGHER PRESSURE DELAYS AND RECRIMINATIONS ENSUED. THE CHIEF PLT ARRIVED AT THE ACFT AND WE CALMLY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE. HE PROMISED TO LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND SEVERAL MINS LATER RETURNED WITH THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION: COMPANY MAINT CTL HAD CONTACTED BOMBARDIER; THE MANUFACTURER OF THE CRJ200; AND HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE MEL; THE CASCADE VANES WERE NOT CONSIDERED PART OF THE THRUST REVERSER STRUCTURE. THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN SIGNED OFF BY OUR MECHANICS AS AIRWORTHY; AND WAS THUS SAFE TO FLY. I WAS GIVEN TIME TO THINK IT OVER; AS HE AGREED THERE WAS MERIT TO MY INTERPRETATION OF THE MEL PROC; BUT WAS INFORMED CLEARLY THAT SHOULD I CHOOSE NOT TO FLY; THERE WAS POTENTIAL FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ME. TO HIS CREDIT; HE WAS FAIR AND CALM; AND I HAVE NO COMPLAINT WITH HIS ACTIONS. AFTER CONSULTING MY CREW (WHO HAD BEEN PART OF THE DECISION PROCESS ALL ALONG); I ELECTED TO PROCEED; WITH THEIR CONCURRENCE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT COMPANY CONTACTED BOMBARDIER; OR THAT THE MANUFACTURER AGREED WITH THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE CASCADE VANES (THAT SIT IN THE BYPASS AIRFLOW) ARE NOT PART OF THE THRUST REVERSER STRUCTURE. I ASKED FOR A COPY OF THIS INTERPRETATION IN WRITING BEFORE I FLEW THE AIRPLANE; AND WAS TOLD THAT NO COPY WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ME. I CANNOT IMAGINE THE MANUFACTURER AGREEING THAT A CRACK IN PART OF THE THRUST REVERSER AIRFLOW TURNING MECHANISM DOES NOT CONSTITUTE STRUCTURAL DAMAGE. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS EPISODE REPRESENTS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF COMPANY'S FAILURE TO PROPERLY MAINTAIN THEIR AIRPLANES. THE COMPANY HAS A 'LAUNCH AT ALL COSTS' MENTALITY AND HAS BEEN KNOWN TO PRESSURE CREWS INTO FLYING MARGINALLY AIRWORTHY ACFT TO KEEP COMPLETION FACTORS UP. COMPANY IS UNDERSTAFFED AT ALL OPERATIONAL LEVELS; MOST NOTABLY AMONG FLT CREWS AND MECHANICS. DISPATCHING WITH MULTIPLE MEL OR CDL (CONFIGURATION DEVIATION LIST) ITEMS IS THE RULE RATHER THAN THE EXCEPTION -- I ONCE FLEW AN ACFT WITH TWELVE SUCH ITEMS. THIS IS LEGAL; BUT IT PUSHES THE SAFETY NET OF SYSTEM REDUNDANCY TOO HARD. FURTHERMORE; IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE ON MANY OCCASIONS (THIS BEING ONLY THE LATEST) THAT MAINT CTL (AND SYSTEMS OPS CTL) BROWBEAT CREWS INTO DISREGARDING SAFETYISSUES WITH THE AIRPLANES. THOSE OF US WITH MORE EXPERIENCE KNOW WHEN AND HOW HARD TO PUSH BACK -- MOST TIMES THE OFFENDING PARTY AT THE COMPANY WILL BACK OFF IN THE FACE OF A COMPELLING ARGUMENT. HOWEVER; COMPANY IS LARGELY COMPOSED OF RELATIVELY YOUNG; LOW TIME PLTS (21 YR OLD FO'S CAN HAVE AS FEW AS 350 HRS; TOTAL TIME; WITH 25 HRS IN JETS WHEN THEY HIT THE LINE) WHO WILL CAVE UNDER THE PRESSURE OF EVEN SPEAKING WITH A CHIEF PLT.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE DEFERRAL OF THE #1 ENGINE THRUST REVERSER WITH CRACKED CASCADE VANES COULD NOT; IN HIS VIEW; MEET THE MINIMUM EQUIPMENT LIST REQUIREMENT OF NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE THRUST REVERSER SYSTEM. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT THE MANUFACTURER WAS NEVER CONTACTED FOR THE PERMISSION TO OPERATE THE AIRPLANE WITH CRACKED CASCADE VANES IN CONFLICT WITH THE MEL. THE CHIEF PLT MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THERE COULD BE DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN FOR REFUSAL TO FLY THE TRIP AND WITH CONCURRENCE OF OTHER CREW THEY FLEW THE TRIP. THE RPTR CLAIMS THAT HIS COMPANY HAS CUT BACK ON MAINT AND THE NUMBER OF DEFERRED ITEMS HAS INCREASED.