PIC OF LTT COMMUTER FAILS TO WRITE UP FAULTY CABIN ATTENDANT SEAT AND SEAT BELT AFTER AN FAA FLT INSPECTION ACFT AT LGA.

Narrative

THE FAA CONDUCTED A RAMP INSPECTION OF THE ACFT. THE FO AND I WERE IN THE COCKPIT WHEN THE INSPECTOR ADVISED ME THAT THE FLT ATTENDANT'S SEAT HAD NOT AUTOMATICALLY RETRACTED WHEN THE SEAT WAS PUSHED DOWN AND THE SEAT BELT HAD SOME FRAYING. HE SUGGESTED THAT I ADVISE A MECH AT THE NEXT MAINT STATION TO LOOK AT THESE ITEMS. HE SAID THAT IT IS BETTER TO DEAL WITH THEM NOW THAN WHEN THEY ARE A PROB LATER. I UNDERSTOOD THIS TO MEAN THAT HE CONSIDERED THE SEAT AND SEAT BELT IN AIRWORTHY CONDITION BUT THAT SOON THEY MAY NOT BE. WE THEN FLEW THE ACFT TO THE NEXT STATION AND XFERRED THE ACFT TO ANOTHER CREW; ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT MEET THIS NEW CREW OURSELVES. THE NEXT STATION WAS NOT A MAINT BASE. SINCE I COULDN'T VERBALLY RELAY THE MESSAGE ABOUT THE FLT ATTENDANT'S SEAT AND BELT TO THE NEW CREW; I CHKED THEM OUT MYSELF. THE SEAT RETRACTED FINE AND THE BELT SEEMED TO BE WITHIN ACCEPTABLE LIMITS FOR USE IN MY JUDGEMENT; SO I CONSIDERED THE SEAT RETRACTION PROB TO BE RESOLVED. THE ACFT WAS RAMP CHKED AGAIN IN LGA AND THE SEAT AGAIN FAILED TO RETRACT. THE FAA INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED BY THE SAME REPRESENTATIVE AS BEFORE. HE WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE FACT THAT THE SEAT PROB WASN'T ADDRESSED THE FIRST TIME. I CONSIDER THE FAA'S HANDLING OF THIS TO BE A SAFETY ISSUE. IF THE INSPECTOR FELT THAT THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE PROB WITH FLT ATTENDANT'S JUMP SEAT THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED; HE DID NOT COMMUNICATE THIS CLRLY TO ME. THE INSPECTOR WAS VERY AMBIGUOUS ABOUT AN ISSUE HE APPARENTLY FELT WAS AN UNAIRWORTHY JUMP SEAT AND HE DID NOT COMMUNICATE THIS CLRLY TO ME AS IF HE WERE TESTING MY HANDLING OF THE SIT. I FELT HE HAD A DUTY TO RPT TO ME PRECISELY WHAT HIS FINDING WAS. SUGGESTING THAT WE CAN FLY TO ANOTHER STATION SUGGESTS THAT WE WERE FOUND TO BE AIRWORTHY AND IF I LATER FIND HIS CONCERNS TO WARRANT WAITING FURTHER THAT IS MY DECISION.