Narrative:

Flight was level at FL330. The #3 flight attendant called the cockpit and informed us that there were four areas of the carpet in main cabin attendant that was showing signs of buckling. She came to the cockpit and described the problem verbally and with a drawing to help orient the crew to her description. She described a 2 inch wide X 1 1/2 inch high roll in the rug at row 12 extending from wall to wall. A 4 inch wide X 1 1/2 inch high roll in the rug at row 23-24 extending from wall to wall. A roll in the rug from row 12 to row 20 in both aisles. She further stated that when stepping on the roll in the aisle, the outer portion of the roll was supported, but the inner portion depressed to a lower elevation. The rolls in the rug were high enough to prevent a service cart from rolling over it. I called dispatch who tied maintenance into the call. After conferring with them, maintenance recommended that we land at the nearest airport. I agreed with that and landed the aircraft at ZZZZ. There were no injuries to any passengers or crew members and there was no other evidence of damage to the aircraft other than the floor system movement. The rolls in the floor disappeared upon the wheels touching down. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that after the diversion which cost the carrier $175,000 it was revealed that this rolling of the carpet is caused by the floating floor system design. The reporter said neither airbus nor the company would publish anything for the flight crews or cabin crews advising that the floor is designed to expand and contract as the fuselage expands and contracts. The reporter stated it was revealed to him the company has averaged at least one diversion per year and this year two from this floor effect. The reporter said the last training class attended by the reporter did not even mention this floor situation. The reporter stated during the in-flight report from the cabin attendant attendant about the rolls in the carpet I could not dismiss the possibility of structural failure. The reporter said maintenance control must have had the same thought when he advised land immediately.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS 300 IN CRUISE AT FL330 DECLARES AN EMER AND DIVERTS DUE TO 4 CABIN FLOOR SECTIONS WITH THE CARPET RAISED 2 FT WIDE BY 1.5 INCHES HIGH. WALL TO WALL.

Narrative: FLT WAS LEVEL AT FL330. THE #3 FA CALLED THE COCKPIT AND INFORMED US THAT THERE WERE FOUR AREAS OF THE CARPET IN MAIN CAB THAT WAS SHOWING SIGNS OF BUCKLING. SHE CAME TO THE COCKPIT AND DESCRIBED THE PROB VERBALLY AND WITH A DRAWING TO HELP ORIENT THE CREW TO HER DESCRIPTION. SHE DESCRIBED A 2 INCH WIDE X 1 1/2 INCH HIGH ROLL IN THE RUG AT ROW 12 EXTENDING FROM WALL TO WALL. A 4 INCH WIDE X 1 1/2 INCH HIGH ROLL IN THE RUG AT ROW 23-24 EXTENDING FROM WALL TO WALL. A ROLL IN THE RUG FROM ROW 12 TO ROW 20 IN BOTH AISLES. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT WHEN STEPPING ON THE ROLL IN THE AISLE, THE OUTER PORTION OF THE ROLL WAS SUPPORTED, BUT THE INNER PORTION DEPRESSED TO A LOWER ELEVATION. THE ROLLS IN THE RUG WERE HIGH ENOUGH TO PREVENT A SVC CART FROM ROLLING OVER IT. I CALLED DISPATCH WHO TIED MAINT INTO THE CALL. AFTER CONFERRING WITH THEM, MAINT RECOMMENDED THAT WE LAND AT THE NEAREST ARPT. I AGREED WITH THAT AND LANDED THE ACFT AT ZZZZ. THERE WERE NO INJURIES TO ANY PASSENGERS OR CREW MEMBERS AND THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF DAMAGE TO THE ACFT OTHER THAN THE FLOOR SYSTEM MOVEMENT. THE ROLLS IN THE FLOOR DISAPPEARED UPON THE WHEELS TOUCHING DOWN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT AFTER THE DIVERSION WHICH COST THE CARRIER $175,000 IT WAS REVEALED THAT THIS ROLLING OF THE CARPET IS CAUSED BY THE FLOATING FLOOR SYSTEM DESIGN. THE RPTR SAID NEITHER AIRBUS NOR THE COMPANY WOULD PUBLISH ANYTHING FOR THE FLT CREWS OR CABIN CREWS ADVISING THAT THE FLOOR IS DESIGNED TO EXPAND AND CONTRACT AS THE FUSELAGE EXPANDS AND CONTRACTS. THE RPTR STATED IT WAS REVEALED TO HIM THE COMPANY HAS AVERAGED AT LEAST ONE DIVERSION PER YEAR AND THIS YEAR TWO FROM THIS FLOOR EFFECT. THE RPTR SAID THE LAST TRAINING CLASS ATTENDED BY THE RPTR DID NOT EVEN MENTION THIS FLOOR SIT. THE RPTR STATED DURING THE INFLT RPT FROM THE CAB ATTENDANT ABOUT THE ROLLS IN THE CARPET I COULD NOT DISMISS THE POSSIBILITY OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE. THE RPTR SAID MAINT CTL MUST HAVE HAD THE SAME THOUGHT WHEN HE ADVISED LAND IMMEDIATELY.

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.