Narrative:

During the preflight of our new aircraft in lga; I found the captain and first officer seatback panels broken in multiple places. I made the following write-up in the maintenance log: 'captain seatback cushion support panel is cracked 1 1/2 inches at the rear lower right center screw point; also the left rear lower side 'left' attach point is broken; unattached. The front side attach rivets; all 3 on the left side and bottom one on the right is missing. First officer seatback cushion support panel is cracked 2 inches at the rear lower right center screw point; and screw is missing. Also the left and right rear lower side 'left' attach points are broken; unattached. The front side attach rivets; middle and bottom 2 on each side are missing.' I called maintenance person from the phone in the ramp office and they said they would send maintenance to the aircraft. I then returned to the aircraft and waited with the rest of my crew. After about 30 mins or so; the contracted line maintenance person showed up with the deferral documents. He looked at the seats and said he would have to talk to our air carrier maintenance to confirm what they wanted to do; considering the condition of the seats. After about another 30 mins he came back and said the seats were deferred for 100 hours and we were good to go. I believe the seats were unsafe for the following reasons: 1) if I needed to perform a high speed abort; the upper seatback would not give me sufficient support to provide maximum braking; and neither could the first officer provide maximum braking because his seat was in the same condition. 2) if I were airborne and had a nose-up trim runaway condition; I would not have sufficient seatback support to provide necessary forward pressure on the yoke during the extended time it would take to get the aircraft safely back on the ground. The first officer would also have the same problem. 3) our crew; on the previous leg in a different airplane; experienced severe turbulence and windshear at 10000 ft MSL. At one point; the PF had to rapidly provide maximum forward movement on the yoke in order to maintain aircraft control. I believe the seatback in this airplane would not have provided the support necessary for safety in such an event. I later received a note for a deferral on a seatback in equivalent condition as the seatbacks in this case. The note stated; 'in your event; the seatback panel should have been fixed as it exceeded the limits for deferral. The maintenance engineering group will be speaking with the maintenance controllers to educate them on the proper criteria for making future deferrals.' based on this statement and the previously mentioned safety concerns; I refused the aircraft as unsafe for me and my crew to fly. A review of the MEL for pilot seat deferrals reveals the following information: each item which can be deferred on the seat (the seatback panel is not one of them) are subject to 'crew member acceptance.' the timeframes for the deferral are 'category B 3 days;' and 'category C 10 days.' I have the following questions: is the deferral subject to crewmember acceptance? It appears not; but I don't know because I don't have access to the deferral. Also; what are the reasons the deferral is governed by flight hours (300 or 100; and I don't know what determines which time period is used; again because I don't have access to it) and not days as the case with MEL items? At our air carrier's present rate of aircraft daily flight hours; 100 hours is the equivalent to somewhere between 10-15 days and 300 hours would be 1 month or more. Some clear guidance to the pilots about the limits of this deferral and what determines whether the seatback panel is deferred for 300 or 100 flight hours would be helpful.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CARJ CAPTAIN FEELS MAINTENANCE DEFERRAL OF STRUCTURALLY CRACKED PLT'S SEATS WAS INAPPROPRIATE.

Narrative: DURING THE PREFLT OF OUR NEW ACFT IN LGA; I FOUND THE CAPT AND FO SEATBACK PANELS BROKEN IN MULTIPLE PLACES. I MADE THE FOLLOWING WRITE-UP IN THE MAINT LOG: 'CAPT SEATBACK CUSHION SUPPORT PANEL IS CRACKED 1 1/2 INCHES AT THE REAR LOWER R CTR SCREW POINT; ALSO THE L REAR LOWER SIDE 'L' ATTACH POINT IS BROKEN; UNATTACHED. THE FRONT SIDE ATTACH RIVETS; ALL 3 ON THE L SIDE AND BOTTOM ONE ON THE R IS MISSING. FO SEATBACK CUSHION SUPPORT PANEL IS CRACKED 2 INCHES AT THE REAR LOWER R CTR SCREW POINT; AND SCREW IS MISSING. ALSO THE L AND R REAR LOWER SIDE 'L' ATTACH POINTS ARE BROKEN; UNATTACHED. THE FRONT SIDE ATTACH RIVETS; MIDDLE AND BOTTOM 2 ON EACH SIDE ARE MISSING.' I CALLED MAINT PERSON FROM THE PHONE IN THE RAMP OFFICE AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD SEND MAINT TO THE ACFT. I THEN RETURNED TO THE ACFT AND WAITED WITH THE REST OF MY CREW. AFTER ABOUT 30 MINS OR SO; THE CONTRACTED LINE MAINT PERSON SHOWED UP WITH THE DEFERRAL DOCUMENTS. HE LOOKED AT THE SEATS AND SAID HE WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO OUR ACR MAINT TO CONFIRM WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO; CONSIDERING THE CONDITION OF THE SEATS. AFTER ABOUT ANOTHER 30 MINS HE CAME BACK AND SAID THE SEATS WERE DEFERRED FOR 100 HRS AND WE WERE GOOD TO GO. I BELIEVE THE SEATS WERE UNSAFE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1) IF I NEEDED TO PERFORM A HIGH SPD ABORT; THE UPPER SEATBACK WOULD NOT GIVE ME SUFFICIENT SUPPORT TO PROVIDE MAX BRAKING; AND NEITHER COULD THE FO PROVIDE MAX BRAKING BECAUSE HIS SEAT WAS IN THE SAME CONDITION. 2) IF I WERE AIRBORNE AND HAD A NOSE-UP TRIM RUNAWAY CONDITION; I WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SEATBACK SUPPORT TO PROVIDE NECESSARY FORWARD PRESSURE ON THE YOKE DURING THE EXTENDED TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO GET THE ACFT SAFELY BACK ON THE GND. THE FO WOULD ALSO HAVE THE SAME PROB. 3) OUR CREW; ON THE PREVIOUS LEG IN A DIFFERENT AIRPLANE; EXPERIENCED SEVERE TURB AND WINDSHEAR AT 10000 FT MSL. AT ONE POINT; THE PF HAD TO RAPIDLY PROVIDE MAX FORWARD MOVEMENT ON THE YOKE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ACFT CTL. I BELIEVE THE SEATBACK IN THIS AIRPLANE WOULD NOT HAVE PROVIDED THE SUPPORT NECESSARY FOR SAFETY IN SUCH AN EVENT. I LATER RECEIVED A NOTE FOR A DEFERRAL ON A SEATBACK IN EQUIVALENT CONDITION AS THE SEATBACKS IN THIS CASE. THE NOTE STATED; 'IN YOUR EVENT; THE SEATBACK PANEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIXED AS IT EXCEEDED THE LIMITS FOR DEFERRAL. THE MAINT ENGINEERING GROUP WILL BE SPEAKING WITH THE MAINT CTLRS TO EDUCATE THEM ON THE PROPER CRITERIA FOR MAKING FUTURE DEFERRALS.' BASED ON THIS STATEMENT AND THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SAFETY CONCERNS; I REFUSED THE ACFT AS UNSAFE FOR ME AND MY CREW TO FLY. A REVIEW OF THE MEL FOR PLT SEAT DEFERRALS REVEALS THE FOLLOWING INFO: EACH ITEM WHICH CAN BE DEFERRED ON THE SEAT (THE SEATBACK PANEL IS NOT ONE OF THEM) ARE SUBJECT TO 'CREW MEMBER ACCEPTANCE.' THE TIMEFRAMES FOR THE DEFERRAL ARE 'CATEGORY B 3 DAYS;' AND 'CATEGORY C 10 DAYS.' I HAVE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: IS THE DEFERRAL SUBJECT TO CREWMEMBER ACCEPTANCE? IT APPEARS NOT; BUT I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE DEFERRAL. ALSO; WHAT ARE THE REASONS THE DEFERRAL IS GOVERNED BY FLT HRS (300 OR 100; AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT DETERMINES WHICH TIME PERIOD IS USED; AGAIN BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO IT) AND NOT DAYS AS THE CASE WITH MEL ITEMS? AT OUR ACR'S PRESENT RATE OF ACFT DAILY FLT HRS; 100 HRS IS THE EQUIVALENT TO SOMEWHERE BTWN 10-15 DAYS AND 300 HRS WOULD BE 1 MONTH OR MORE. SOME CLR GUIDANCE TO THE PLTS ABOUT THE LIMITS OF THIS DEFERRAL AND WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER THE SEATBACK PANEL IS DEFERRED FOR 300 OR 100 FLT HRS WOULD BE HELPFUL.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.