Narrative:

On our departure at about 5000ft; we got a bleed 1 leak EICAS message. We ran the required QRH and continued flight below FL310 as described by the QRH. I sent a text message to dispatch to inform them of the issue and to advise maintenance. After landing; I called maintenance control and wrote up the bleed 1 system. They sent out the contract mechanic and he inspected the engine for about 40 minutes. He then came back in the airplane to give us a synoptic. He found that the duct system connected to a fan in the bleed system had a hole in it. He said because the airplane can't distinguish where the problem in the system is; it comes up with the message for the whole system and then the mechanics decide which sub-component is defective. At this point [he] went back outside to further analyze the system and forward his findings to company maintenance control. They informed me that they will be deferring the fan portion of the bleed 1 system. The MEL they decided to use was MEL 36-11-09-1. This MEL procedure then directs us to 36-00-00. Now this is where my first officer and I started to have concerns. MEL on 36-00-00 had an option where one bleed is available; and one available with icing conditions prohibited. At this point; our destination was forecasting snow and our current airport was getting ready to have snow in about 1 hour. The mels basically say the same thing but the icing conditions prohibited section made me a bit concern. I wanted to know how they decided to use the MEL and conveniently gave them the option to fly into icing condition on 1 available bleed. About 30 minutes went by with my first officer and I deciding if this is at all legit. We looked at the mfd synoptic pages to get a better mental picture of what was going on with the system. The airplane was powered off at this point so obviously it wouldn't accurately show on the anti-ice mfd page what the flow would look like. We went back and forth with maintenance control with questions and concerns. With the bleed 1 valve closed; we wanted to know if the system was capable of providing bleed air to engine 1 because on the anti-ice page; it shows that the valve is closed and at a glance doesn't look like that would happen. At this point; maintenance control and a contract mechanic were trying to convince us that we can go into icing conditions with 1 bleed. My first officer and I still had doubts. The doubts had weren't from the lack of trust in maintenance control but the simple fact that we have no way to verify most of what they are telling us. Maintenance control obviously have the tools and resources to help them come to go/no-go decision; but I don't. Maintenance control was looking at diagrams and schematics of the bleed and anti ice systems in the flight manual volume 2. This use to be in the airplane but now it's not available to us. My first officer has his recurrent coming up and was studying and had some of these printouts from when he was a new hire. My whole concern and reason for filing this report is to raise safety concerns about the lack of information and resources we have in the aircraft. Why was flight manual 2 taken out of the airplanes? How did the FAA allow this? Is this to save 'weight'; if so take out the efbs and put the flight manual 2 back in the airplane so we have information on the systems instead of taking a mechanics word for it. I've never been to an airline that was allowed to operate without some kinds of flight manual on the aircraft. As a student pilot; I learned the acronym marrow (MEL; airworthiness; radio license; registration; operating handbook; weight and balance). The only one I can think of that is missing from our company's airplanes is the flight manual 2 which in my mind would be an equivalent to a pilot operating handbook. Is this not the case? I don't see how taking this document out of the aircraft was done with the interest of safety in mind. We should have this documentback on the airplane to easily access information on how the systems on the airplanes work. I can't help but to think taking out documents out of the airplanes and handing out manuals only on clearance delivery's (now only available online) is not a indirect way of making us dumb and dumber! Put the flight manual 2 back in the airplane; it's that simple. If taking it out was a weight saving adventure; take out the deactivated efb's and put the flight manual 2 back in the airplane so we can easily get information on the aircraft systems.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An ERJ170 Captain reported an engine bleed problem which required the affected engine's bleed be MEL'ed prior to the return flight in icing. The flight crew was concerned about the availability of engine anti-ice bleed air the crew; but lacked manuals to research the system because the aircraft's EFB was disabled and the systems description Flight Manual was removed.

Narrative: On our departure at about 5000ft; we got a BLEED 1 LEAK EICAS message. We ran the required QRH and continued flight below FL310 as described by the QRH. I sent a text message to Dispatch to inform them of the issue and to advise Maintenance. After landing; I called Maintenance Control and wrote up the Bleed 1 system. They sent out the contract Mechanic and he inspected the engine for about 40 minutes. He then came back in the airplane to give us a synoptic. He found that the duct system connected to a fan in the bleed system had a hole in it. He said because the airplane can't distinguish where the problem in the system is; it comes up with the message for the whole system and then the mechanics decide which sub-component is defective. At this point [he] went back outside to further analyze the system and forward his findings to Company Maintenance Control. They informed me that they will be deferring the fan portion of the Bleed 1 system. The MEL they decided to use was MEL 36-11-09-1. This MEL procedure then directs us to 36-00-00. Now this is where my First Officer and I started to have concerns. MEL on 36-00-00 had an option where one bleed is available; and one available with icing conditions prohibited. At this point; our destination was forecasting snow and our current airport was getting ready to have snow in about 1 hour. The MELs basically say the same thing but the icing conditions prohibited section made me a bit concern. I wanted to know how they decided to use the MEL and conveniently gave them the option to fly into icing condition on 1 available bleed. About 30 minutes went by with my First Officer and I deciding if this is at all legit. We looked at the MFD synoptic pages to get a better mental picture of what was going on with the system. The airplane was powered off at this point so obviously it wouldn't accurately show on the anti-ice MFD page what the flow would look like. We went back and forth with Maintenance Control with questions and concerns. With the Bleed 1 valve closed; we wanted to know if the system was capable of providing bleed air to Engine 1 because on the anti-ice page; it shows that the valve is closed and at a glance doesn't look like that would happen. At this point; Maintenance Control and a Contract Mechanic were trying to convince us that we can go into icing conditions with 1 bleed. My First Officer and I still had doubts. The doubts had weren't from the lack of trust in Maintenance Control but the simple fact that we have no way to verify most of what they are telling us. Maintenance Control obviously have the tools and resources to help them come to go/no-go decision; but I don't. Maintenance Control was looking at diagrams and schematics of the bleed and anti ice systems in the Flight Manual Volume 2. This use to be in the airplane but now it's not available to us. My First Officer has his recurrent coming up and was studying and had some of these printouts from when he was a new hire. My whole concern and reason for filing this report is to raise safety concerns about the lack of information and resources we have in the aircraft. Why was Flight Manual 2 taken out of the airplanes? How did the FAA allow this? Is this to save 'weight'; if so take out the EFBs and put the Flight Manual 2 back in the airplane so we have information on the systems instead of taking a mechanics word for it. I've never been to an airline that was allowed to operate without some kinds of Flight Manual on the aircraft. As a student pilot; I learned the acronym MARROW (MEL; Airworthiness; Radio License; Registration; Operating Handbook; Weight and balance). The only one I can think of that is missing from our Company's airplanes is the Flight Manual 2 which in my mind would be an equivalent to a Pilot Operating Handbook. Is this not the case? I don't see how taking this document out of the aircraft was done with the interest of safety in mind. We should have this documentback on the airplane to easily access information on how the systems on the airplanes work. I can't help but to think taking out documents out of the airplanes and handing out manuals only on CD's (now only available online) is not a indirect way of making us dumb and dumber! Put the Flight Manual 2 back in the airplane; it's that simple. If taking it out was a weight saving adventure; take out the deactivated EFB's and put the Flight Manual 2 back in the airplane so we can easily get information on the aircraft systems.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.