Narrative:

After arriving in ZZZ the first officer (first officer) notified me of some questionable damage/wear on three of the main landing gear tires. Tire #1 had a fairly deep cut in the tread; #2 had a wear mark that appeared to go through a ply and possibly 2; and #3 has an area that looked like the rubber was flaking away. Tires 2; 3; & 4 looked to be toward the end of their serviceable life. We requested an inspection of the tires to see if they were within limits or not and if they needed to be changed. The mechanic arrived and took pictures to send to maintenance control. After about 45 minutes of not hearing back from maintenance control the mechanic called again and was notified that the pictures were not received. Ten minutes later; [maintenance] called back the on call mechanic and notified him that they were within serviceable limits and could take 5 more cycles before being replaced. I'm not an expert on tires and the wear involved; so I trusted this decision that came down from maintenance control and the on call mechanic. We flew [the next two legs] without incident. After arriving in [destination]; two mechanics met us at the gate to take [the aircraft] over to the hangar. The two mechanics told me and the first officer that they couldn't believe they said these tires had 5 cycles left on them and that they were surprised that it was signed off.at this point I felt that the decision was made to keep the operation going so they wouldn't have to bring replacement tires and more than likely have two canceled flights. There is a lot of trust that we as crew members put on many different people in the entire operation. One has to assume that the job is done honestly and safely; this information that was brought to our attention by our own mechanics made me wonder if there was a motive behind that aircraft being signed off. Unless there is something grossly obvious that is wrong; I have to trust that the aircraft is being signed off because it truly is airworthy. I am not the mechanic with the manuals to interpret if a tire is serviceable or not.we as crew members did the correct thing in writing the aircraft up and requesting inspection of an item that we were unsure about. After getting conflicting information from our own company mechanics that saw the tires after the fact; it made me wonder if the aircraft was signed off just to get the flights completed and to the maintenance base. This experience is going to make me question the integrity and honesty in the future when I have items signed off. In the future that will probably make me err on the side of extreme caution and possibly refuse an aircraft if I question the decision of others.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 flight crew reported they were dispatched with main gear tires that were in marginal condition. Crew expressed concern that this was not a sound maintenance decision.

Narrative: After arriving in ZZZ the First Officer (FO) notified me of some questionable damage/wear on three of the main landing gear tires. Tire #1 had a fairly deep cut in the tread; #2 had a wear mark that appeared to go through a ply and possibly 2; and #3 has an area that looked like the rubber was flaking away. Tires 2; 3; & 4 looked to be toward the end of their serviceable life. We requested an inspection of the tires to see if they were within limits or not and if they needed to be changed. The mechanic arrived and took pictures to send to maintenance control. After about 45 minutes of not hearing back from maintenance control the mechanic called again and was notified that the pictures were not received. Ten minutes later; [maintenance] called back the on call mechanic and notified him that they were within serviceable limits and could take 5 more cycles before being replaced. I'm not an expert on tires and the wear involved; so I trusted this decision that came down from maintenance control and the on call mechanic. We flew [the next two legs] without incident. After arriving in [destination]; two mechanics met us at the gate to take [the aircraft] over to the hangar. The two mechanics told me and the FO that they couldn't believe they said these tires had 5 cycles left on them and that they were surprised that it was signed off.At this point I felt that the decision was made to keep the operation going so they wouldn't have to bring replacement tires and more than likely have two canceled flights. There is a lot of trust that we as crew members put on many different people in the entire operation. One has to assume that the job is done honestly and safely; this information that was brought to our attention by our own mechanics made me wonder if there was a motive behind that aircraft being signed off. Unless there is something grossly obvious that is wrong; I have to trust that the aircraft is being signed off because it truly is airworthy. I am not the mechanic with the manuals to interpret if a tire is serviceable or not.We as crew members did the correct thing in writing the aircraft up and requesting inspection of an item that we were unsure about. After getting conflicting information from our own company mechanics that saw the tires after the fact; it made me wonder if the aircraft was signed off just to get the flights completed and to the maintenance base. This experience is going to make me question the integrity and honesty in the future when I have items signed off. In the future that will probably make me err on the side of extreme caution and possibly refuse an aircraft if I question the decision of others.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.