Narrative:

Approximately 35-40 mins later after picking up dispatch release I was notified that FAA/aci was on board chkriding the aircraft as I approached the aircraft I met FAA inspector from the sjc standards office and he informed me that a few seats were not in compliance with a new FAA directive and that the seat backs were blocking the overwing exits. I didn't know that he and contract maintenance had already notified maintenance control in iah. I inspected the work and asked FAA inspector if he was satisfied with contract mechanic work and he said yes. I talked about other things on flight safety for a few mins then before he left FAA inspector, FAA aci, I asked if there was anything else he needed or would have done. He said as long as maintenance control was alerted and the seat backs were fixed that he was satisfied. He told me he would be notifying air carrier poi about situation he found and I told him I would tell our next maintenance station (denver) maintenance supervisors what needed to be checked and verified which I did to a (mechanic) when he met the aircraft. 2 or 3 days later I was notified by company ground personnel assistant chief pilot (air carrier) that I was being given a warning that at the discretion of the poi or higher could be expanded to certificate action violation and that I should write a NASA letter to cover myself because I did not write up the items he found at sjc. He also wrote a warning for the contract maintenance man (mechanic). FAA inspector never indicated he was unhappy with the actions taken or not taken to us and I feel I was led into a situation by this new FAA man that should never have allowed this to happen by suggesting that this should be written up. I wrote up several other large transport aircraft for the same overwing exit obstruction in succeeding days on my next trip and I came to find out that there is a lot of interpretation difference within the FAA offices and maintenance and even our maintenance quality control specialists, and air carrier airlines as of approximately 10/92 has now put this unright overwing obstruction interpretation on 'hold' until the FAA comes down with a more definite explanation and air carrier maintenance contends that my original problem may not even have been an item subject to a write-up in sjc as was air carrier original contention!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF ACR LGT ACFT OPERATED UNAIRWORTHY ACFT WHEN CERTAIN PAX SEAT-BACKS WERE NOT PREVENTED FROM BLOCKING THE OVERWING EXITS.

Narrative: APPROX 35-40 MINS LATER AFTER PICKING UP DISPATCH RELEASE I WAS NOTIFIED THAT FAA/ACI WAS ON BOARD CHKRIDING THE ACFT AS I APCHED THE ACFT I MET FAA INSPECTOR FROM THE SJC STANDARDS OFFICE AND HE INFORMED ME THAT A FEW SEATS WERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH A NEW FAA DIRECTIVE AND THAT THE SEAT BACKS WERE BLOCKING THE OVERWING EXITS. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE AND CONTRACT MAINT HAD ALREADY NOTIFIED MAINT CTL IN IAH. I INSPECTED THE WORK AND ASKED FAA INSPECTOR IF HE WAS SATISFIED WITH CONTRACT MECH WORK AND HE SAID YES. I TALKED ABOUT OTHER THINGS ON FLT SAFETY FOR A FEW MINS THEN BEFORE HE LEFT FAA INSPECTOR, FAA ACI, I ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING ELSE HE NEEDED OR WOULD HAVE DONE. HE SAID AS LONG AS MAINT CTL WAS ALERTED AND THE SEAT BACKS WERE FIXED THAT HE WAS SATISFIED. HE TOLD ME HE WOULD BE NOTIFYING ACR POI ABOUT SITUATION HE FOUND AND I TOLD HIM I WOULD TELL OUR NEXT MAINT STATION (DENVER) MAINT SUPVRS WHAT NEEDED TO BE CHKED AND VERIFIED WHICH I DID TO A (MECH) WHEN HE MET THE ACFT. 2 OR 3 DAYS LATER I WAS NOTIFIED BY CGP ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT (ACR) THAT I WAS BEING GIVEN A WARNING THAT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE POI OR HIGHER COULD BE EXPANDED TO CERTIFICATE ACTION VIOLATION AND THAT I SHOULD WRITE A NASA LETTER TO COVER MYSELF BECAUSE I DID NOT WRITE UP THE ITEMS HE FOUND AT SJC. HE ALSO WROTE A WARNING FOR THE CONTRACT MAINT MAN (MECH). FAA INSPECTOR NEVER INDICATED HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN TO US AND I FEEL I WAS LED INTO A SITUATION BY THIS NEW FAA MAN THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN BY SUGGESTING THAT THIS SHOULD BE WRITTEN UP. I WROTE UP SEVERAL OTHER LGT ACFT FOR THE SAME OVERWING EXIT OBSTRUCTION IN SUCCEEDING DAYS ON MY NEXT TRIP AND I CAME TO FIND OUT THAT THERE IS A LOT OF INTERPRETATION DIFFERENCE WITHIN THE FAA OFFICES AND MAINT AND EVEN OUR MAINT QUALITY CTL SPECIALISTS, AND ACR AIRLINES AS OF APPROX 10/92 HAS NOW PUT THIS UNRIGHT OVERWING OBSTRUCTION INTERPRETATION ON 'HOLD' UNTIL THE FAA COMES DOWN WITH A MORE DEFINITE EXPLANATION AND ACR MAINT CONTENDS THAT MY ORIGINAL PROBLEM MAY NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN AN ITEM SUBJECT TO A WRITE-UP IN SJC AS WAS ACR ORIGINAL CONTENTION!

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.