Narrative:

On oct/thu/06; I was assigned ship XXXX. The flight attendant asked me to come look at something in the cabin. The emergency egress ropes that are part of the over-wing exits were hard to access. It appeared that the seats were somehow installed incorrectly. She related an experience where her crew once had to ferry an aircraft because the seats prevented the opening of the emergency exits. I asked what flight and when and all she could remember was 'about a few months ago' and that they ferried to ZZZ1. Maintenance was called. Initially the mechanic stated that the leading metal of the seat was supposed to be just in front of the center of the window pane. I estimate the distance was about 5-6 inches. Had the bar been only a 1-2 inch; the rope panel would have been ok. However; only a small part of the upper r-hand corner of the panel was visible from the exit row seats. The row behind could see about 75% of the panel. The mechanic demonstrated that the panel could be opened from the exit row seat; even though it seemed a bit tight to me. As I pressed the issue; he called and got measurements and after checking the aircraft; he stated that the seats were installed per the engineering order and signed the aircraft accordingly. After speaking with chief pilot; I accepted the aircraft based on the facts that the rope was accessible and that the chief pilot indicated that if maintenance signed it off; I should accept the aircraft. Even though I do not feel that the seats are aligned in the optimal position; the aircraft is apparently in compliance and the ropes are accessible. Hence; I felt that I should accept the aircraft. My observation was that new seats were recently installed in this aircraft (no scratches; tears; dents; or wear was apparent). They are the new style seats; and that the last seat in both rows appeared to be installed further forward from the rear bulkheads than the original seats. Working forward from the back row; the difference in distance corresponds to the distance at the emergency exit row. Later; while observing other aircraft which still have the old style seats -- I noted that the seat backs of the new seats are wider than the old style -- possibly a contributing factor in making access to the panel more difficult. When we did go; the flight attendant briefed the passenger as to the location of the rope and she commented that the passenger were having trouble locating the panel. Also worth noting; is the labeling of the panel. It states in part 'for crew use only.' since we expect emergency row passenger to open the door and since the flight attendant is not at the exit; it seems that something along the line of 'for emergency use only' would be better.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ200 PLT NOTES THAT THE OVER-WING EMER EGRESS ROPE ACCESS PANEL MAY BE BLOCKED BY HIS ACR'S NEW PAX SEATS.

Narrative: ON OCT/THU/06; I WAS ASSIGNED SHIP XXXX. THE FLT ATTENDANT ASKED ME TO COME LOOK AT SOMETHING IN THE CABIN. THE EMER EGRESS ROPES THAT ARE PART OF THE OVER-WING EXITS WERE HARD TO ACCESS. IT APPEARED THAT THE SEATS WERE SOMEHOW INSTALLED INCORRECTLY. SHE RELATED AN EXPERIENCE WHERE HER CREW ONCE HAD TO FERRY AN ACFT BECAUSE THE SEATS PREVENTED THE OPENING OF THE EMER EXITS. I ASKED WHAT FLT AND WHEN AND ALL SHE COULD REMEMBER WAS 'ABOUT A FEW MONTHS AGO' AND THAT THEY FERRIED TO ZZZ1. MAINT WAS CALLED. INITIALLY THE MECH STATED THAT THE LEADING METAL OF THE SEAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE JUST IN FRONT OF THE CTR OF THE WINDOW PANE. I ESTIMATE THE DISTANCE WAS ABOUT 5-6 INCHES. HAD THE BAR BEEN ONLY A 1-2 INCH; THE ROPE PANEL WOULD HAVE BEEN OK. HOWEVER; ONLY A SMALL PART OF THE UPPER R-HAND CORNER OF THE PANEL WAS VISIBLE FROM THE EXIT ROW SEATS. THE ROW BEHIND COULD SEE ABOUT 75% OF THE PANEL. THE MECH DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PANEL COULD BE OPENED FROM THE EXIT ROW SEAT; EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMED A BIT TIGHT TO ME. AS I PRESSED THE ISSUE; HE CALLED AND GOT MEASUREMENTS AND AFTER CHKING THE ACFT; HE STATED THAT THE SEATS WERE INSTALLED PER THE ENGINEERING ORDER AND SIGNED THE ACFT ACCORDINGLY. AFTER SPEAKING WITH CHIEF PLT; I ACCEPTED THE ACFT BASED ON THE FACTS THAT THE ROPE WAS ACCESSIBLE AND THAT THE CHIEF PLT INDICATED THAT IF MAINT SIGNED IT OFF; I SHOULD ACCEPT THE ACFT. EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE SEATS ARE ALIGNED IN THE OPTIMAL POS; THE ACFT IS APPARENTLY IN COMPLIANCE AND THE ROPES ARE ACCESSIBLE. HENCE; I FELT THAT I SHOULD ACCEPT THE ACFT. MY OBSERVATION WAS THAT NEW SEATS WERE RECENTLY INSTALLED IN THIS ACFT (NO SCRATCHES; TEARS; DENTS; OR WEAR WAS APPARENT). THEY ARE THE NEW STYLE SEATS; AND THAT THE LAST SEAT IN BOTH ROWS APPEARED TO BE INSTALLED FURTHER FORWARD FROM THE REAR BULKHEADS THAN THE ORIGINAL SEATS. WORKING FORWARD FROM THE BACK ROW; THE DIFFERENCE IN DISTANCE CORRESPONDS TO THE DISTANCE AT THE EMER EXIT ROW. LATER; WHILE OBSERVING OTHER ACFT WHICH STILL HAVE THE OLD STYLE SEATS -- I NOTED THAT THE SEAT BACKS OF THE NEW SEATS ARE WIDER THAN THE OLD STYLE -- POSSIBLY A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR IN MAKING ACCESS TO THE PANEL MORE DIFFICULT. WHEN WE DID GO; THE FLT ATTENDANT BRIEFED THE PAX AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE ROPE AND SHE COMMENTED THAT THE PAX WERE HAVING TROUBLE LOCATING THE PANEL. ALSO WORTH NOTING; IS THE LABELING OF THE PANEL. IT STATES IN PART 'FOR CREW USE ONLY.' SINCE WE EXPECT EMER ROW PAX TO OPEN THE DOOR AND SINCE THE FLT ATTENDANT IS NOT AT THE EXIT; IT SEEMS THAT SOMETHING ALONG THE LINE OF 'FOR EMER USE ONLY' WOULD BE BETTER.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 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.