Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General Maintenance Action
Manuals; Procedure
Just prior to closing the cabin door a ramp employee came to the cockpit and informed us that the forward and center cargo doors did not look right. I went outside with the ramp employee and looked at the forward and center cargo doors. Both were missing a part that sealed a gap that was now visible between the door and fuselage. There were no MELs or CDLs on the release or in the aircraft maintenance [logbook]. I called Maintenance Control via our Dispatcher. The Maintenance Controller stated that the aircraft does have a [Engineering Authorization Document] for the forward and center cargo doors. I asked if there was a copy of the [Engineering Authorization Document] in the [logbook]; but he was not sure. Before leaving we verified there was a [Engineering Authorization Document] in the [logbook] for both the forward and center cargo doors. The cabin door was closed while I read the [Engineering Authorization Document]. After reading the [Engineering Authorization Document] I was concerned the cargo doors were not within the repair guidelines. I asked the First Officer and the jumpseater both to read the [document]. Both agreed that it states any gap between the door and fuselage is sealed with speed tape; but that was not the case. I called Maintenance Control back and expressed my concern and he decided to have Local Maintenance come to the aircraft and verify the [Engineering Authorization Document] is complied with correctly. Maintenance read the [document] and agreed that any gap between the door and fuselage should be sealed. The forward and center cargo bins were emptied of all bags and the doors were sealed closed in order to seal the gap between the door and fuselage and an entry was made in the maintenance log that the [Engineering Authorization Document] was complied with. We closed the cabin door and left approximately 45 minutes late. En route I read the [Engineering Authorization Document] again and realized there are 4 different repair options depending on the type of damage. The repair that was done to the doors before Local Maintenance put speed tape to cover the gap between the fuselage and cargo door was probably correct; the taping of the fuselage door gap being one of the other repair choices. I also looked in the CDL in the AFM and found that the weather seal on the forward and center cargo doors are a CDL item. It can be missing with no penalties. At this point there is some confusion as the [Engineering Authorization Document] mentions a damaged deflector throughout; while the CDL is referring to a weather seal. It did not seem correct to me that the repair and/or a missing part which seemed to be the case would not result in a CDL/MEL or some other pilot notification in the aircraft maintenance [logbook]. I am not aware if [Engineering Authorization Documents] have a pilot notification requirement; though some seem to be put in the aircraft maintenance [logbook] as a courtesy since the Flight Operations Manual has no mention of them. How am I to determine if the aircraft is airworthy? Upon arrival; I looked at another -900 at the gate next door and decided that the CDLs weather seal and the deflector are one in the same. Not having any mention of [Engineering Authorization Document] in the Flight Operations Manual; I decided the best thing to do was write the aircraft up for the missing forward and center cargo door weather seal so they could be added to the aircraft CDL. Without actual training on a [Engineering Authorization Document]; I am under the impression that they cover repairs only; not any performance penalties or other procedures that may exists in the aircraft CDL or MEL. I am writing this report with the further assumption that I flew the aircraft without the required CDL for the missing weather seal.
The pilot of a CRJ-900 was unsure if the Engineering Authorization document submitted by Maintenance Control personnel was complied with on the cargo door issue observed on the aircraft. He elected to write up the discrepancy again to ensure that the issue had compliance.