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.