|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : zzz.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B737-300|
|Operating Under FAR Part||Part 121|
|Flight Phase||ground : parked|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 150|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight attendant : on duty|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
|Independent Detector||other other : flt attendant|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Problem Areas||Maintenance Human Performance|
Flight attendant identified numerous seats (total number yet to be determined) that were 'floppy' in appearance; or what might be described as slightly loose. Situation did not appear to be a safety of flight issue. Upon arrival in ZZZ a more accurate assessment of the seats was made by flight attendant; crew and ZZZ maintenance inspected a few seats in the cabin. I considered the issue a 'gray' area and the maintenance tech said the aircraft could use a night in base instead of the city where it is scheduled. ZZZ maintenance identified the overall situation as a cabin appearance issue. I spoke with maintenance control; and it was immediately obvious that the issue was not that important to them. I told them I will press the issue again prior to its last flight. Upon arrival; I wrote up a detailed list of 28 seats with a 'vague' description of 'various state of disrepair;' i.e. Attachment or seat function. Line mechanic who marshaled in flight began a quick approach to assessing the problem. A maintenance supervisor appeared with a large cadre of mechanics in training and the situation spiraled into an unfortunate 'questioning' of the captain's judgment for even writing up the aircraft. The aircraft was put out of service without the help of dispatch/maintenance control. Upon following up the next day with maintenance control; the aircraft had numerous seats that were repaired and the remaining items were placed on a non-critical job card. Yesterday I pulled flight # into gate by the same hard working maintenance tech from night before. I went down to follow up from the night before and he gave a much more grave opinion of the issue with aircraft #. 'Aircraft should have been grounded in ZZZ!' he further stated that there are no current provisions outside of 'heavy maintenance checks' for major cabin issues; most notably; passenger seats as it relates to more periodic inspection. Maintenance needs to make seat passenger seat function/attachment/structure a mandatory inspection item on in base remain over night aircraft. Flight crews (flight attendant) need to bring cabin appearance issues up on a more frequent basis. Capts need to be more proactive in supporting flight attendant concerns and not 'blow them off.'
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A B737-300 CAPT RPTS A FLT ATTENDANT NOTIFIED HIM OF A LARGE NUMBER OF PAX SEATS THAT WERE CLAIMED TO BE LOOSE AND/OR UNSAFE.
Narrative: FLT ATTENDANT IDENTIFIED NUMEROUS SEATS (TOTAL NUMBER YET TO BE DETERMINED) THAT WERE 'FLOPPY' IN APPEARANCE; OR WHAT MIGHT BE DESCRIBED AS SLIGHTLY LOOSE. SITUATION DID NOT APPEAR TO BE A SAFETY OF FLIGHT ISSUE. UPON ARRIVAL IN ZZZ A MORE ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF THE SEATS WAS MADE BY FLT ATTENDANT; CREW AND ZZZ MAINT INSPECTED A FEW SEATS IN THE CABIN. I CONSIDERED THE ISSUE A 'GRAY' AREA AND THE MAINT TECH SAID THE ACFT COULD USE A NIGHT IN BASE INSTEAD OF THE CITY WHERE IT IS SCHEDULED. ZZZ MAINT IDENTIFIED THE OVERALL SITUATION AS A CABIN APPEARANCE ISSUE. I SPOKE WITH MAINT CONTROL; AND IT WAS IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT THAT IMPORTANT TO THEM. I TOLD THEM I WILL PRESS THE ISSUE AGAIN PRIOR TO ITS LAST FLT. UPON ARR; I WROTE UP A DETAILED LIST OF 28 SEATS WITH A 'VAGUE' DESCRIPTION OF 'VARIOUS STATE OF DISREPAIR;' I.E. ATTACHMENT OR SEAT FUNCTION. LINE MECHANIC WHO MARSHALED IN FLIGHT BEGAN A QUICK APPROACH TO ASSESSING THE PROBLEM. A MAINT SUPERVISOR APPEARED WITH A LARGE CADRE OF MECHANICS IN TRAINING AND THE SITUATION SPIRALED INTO AN UNFORTUNATE 'QUESTIONING' OF THE CAPTAIN'S JUDGMENT FOR EVEN WRITING UP THE ACFT. THE ACFT WAS PUT OUT OF SERVICE WITHOUT THE HELP OF DISPATCH/MAINT CONTROL. UPON FOLLOWING UP THE NEXT DAY WITH MAINT CONTROL; THE ACFT HAD NUMEROUS SEATS THAT WERE REPAIRED AND THE REMAINING ITEMS WERE PLACED ON A NON-CRITICAL JOB CARD. YESTERDAY I PULLED FLT # INTO GATE BY THE SAME HARD WORKING MAINT TECH FROM NIGHT BEFORE. I WENT DOWN TO FOLLOW UP FROM THE NIGHT BEFORE AND HE GAVE A MUCH MORE GRAVE OPINION OF THE ISSUE WITH ACFT #. 'ACFT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GROUNDED IN ZZZ!' HE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE ARE NO CURRENT PROVISIONS OUTSIDE OF 'HEAVY MAINT CHECKS' FOR MAJOR CABIN ISSUES; MOST NOTABLY; PAX SEATS AS IT RELATES TO MORE PERIODIC INSPECTION. MAINT NEEDS TO MAKE SEAT PAX SEAT FUNCTION/ATTACHMENT/STRUCTURE A MANDATORY INSPECTION ITEM ON IN BASE REMAIN OVER NIGHT ACFT. FLT CREWS (FLT ATTENDANT) NEED TO BRING CABIN APPEARANCE ISSUES UP ON A MORE FREQUENT BASIS. CAPTS NEED TO BE MORE PROACTIVE IN SUPPORTING FLT ATTENDANT CONCERNS AND NOT 'BLOW THEM OFF.'
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.