Narrative:

We were operating originator aircraft back to our domicile airport. The flight attendant came up to the flight deck 5 mins prior to pushback to report a problem with a seat. After a short conversation with her, I was led to believe that the problem was some kind of cosmetic trim problem, and decided to get it looked at back at our maintenance base. After landing and deplaning our passenger, I walked back to have the flight attendant show me the seat. The problem was actually that the front attach points for that row had come loose from the seat RAIL. It became apparent that the seat really should have been deferred back at the departure airport, as it was unsafe for passenger use. After the flight, the flight attendant reported that we had a company maintenance person aboard the flight who she had conferred with regarding the seat. It would have been a great help to me as PIC if this person had been more assertive and idented himself and come forward to let me know that I had a seat that was inoperative and needed to be deferred. Our flight attendant was indeed fairly new and inexperienced with the whole maintenance deferral process. From a CRM perspective, a captain's decision is only as good as the information that he's provided with. In the future, I will be more vigilant in investigating and following up when a newer flight attendant is trying to communicate a potential maintenance problem, even if it means taking time away from busy preflight duties to follow up.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CL65 IS OPERATED WITH REVENUE PAX ON BOARD WITH 1 DEFECTIVE SEAT OUT OF CID, IA.

Narrative: WE WERE OPERATING ORIGINATOR ACFT BACK TO OUR DOMICILE ARPT. THE FLT ATTENDANT CAME UP TO THE FLT DECK 5 MINS PRIOR TO PUSHBACK TO RPT A PROB WITH A SEAT. AFTER A SHORT CONVERSATION WITH HER, I WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE PROB WAS SOME KIND OF COSMETIC TRIM PROB, AND DECIDED TO GET IT LOOKED AT BACK AT OUR MAINT BASE. AFTER LNDG AND DEPLANING OUR PAX, I WALKED BACK TO HAVE THE FLT ATTENDANT SHOW ME THE SEAT. THE PROB WAS ACTUALLY THAT THE FRONT ATTACH POINTS FOR THAT ROW HAD COME LOOSE FROM THE SEAT RAIL. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE SEAT REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEFERRED BACK AT THE DEP ARPT, AS IT WAS UNSAFE FOR PAX USE. AFTER THE FLT, THE FLT ATTENDANT RPTED THAT WE HAD A COMPANY MAINT PERSON ABOARD THE FLT WHO SHE HAD CONFERRED WITH REGARDING THE SEAT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT HELP TO ME AS PIC IF THIS PERSON HAD BEEN MORE ASSERTIVE AND IDENTED HIMSELF AND COME FORWARD TO LET ME KNOW THAT I HAD A SEAT THAT WAS INOP AND NEEDED TO BE DEFERRED. OUR FLT ATTENDANT WAS INDEED FAIRLY NEW AND INEXPERIENCED WITH THE WHOLE MAINT DEFERRAL PROCESS. FROM A CRM PERSPECTIVE, A CAPT'S DECISION IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE INFO THAT HE'S PROVIDED WITH. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL BE MORE VIGILANT IN INVESTIGATING AND FOLLOWING UP WHEN A NEWER FLT ATTENDANT IS TRYING TO COMMUNICATE A POTENTIAL MAINT PROB, EVEN IF IT MEANS TAKING TIME AWAY FROM BUSY PREFLT DUTIES TO FOLLOW UP.

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.