Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I arrived at the aircraft to find the Red Maintenance Card displayed with an open nose gear caution message write up by the previous crew. I dropped off my bags and departed up the jetway to inform the gate agent; and also tell her not to board the aircraft until I returned; in that I was going to run down the hall to get something to eat (to go). Upon my return I could review the airworthiness of the aircraft via the maintenance can; and could make a judgment then. She accepted this with no question. While walking down the concourse; I ran into my First Officer and Flight Attendant; and gave them the same instructions. I quickly returned with my food to find FOUR gate agents waiting to ambush me; and the aircraft being boarded. I questioned the action; only to have them inform me I had no say in when they boarded. I informed them that I had not inspected the Maintenance Record; and to stop boarding; until I could review these and brief the crew if needed. Boarding continued despite my wishes. I began inspecting the maintenance can to find 56 NEF's [non Essential Function] associated with the cabin. These were the exact issues that needed to be discussed and reviewed with the Flight Attendant without passengers on board. They ranged from seat back pockets; to overhead lens covers; to vents. I again asked to have the passengers removed; but still no action was being made by the agents; deliberately. Then calls began coming in from the Chief Pilot's office. I was told the NEF's had been on the aircraft for days; and that they were good. I informed him; that may very well be the case; but company procedure required me to verify each item and review with the crew as necessary. At this point; I still had not had the opportunity to even open the MEL/NEF book to review; in that I was having to justify my action to the Chief Pilot's Office (CPO); and the agents. My Flight Attendant; at this point also voiced her concerns over the requirement of these NEFed seat pocket as to the safety briefing card. After much time wasted; the Chief Pilot and I negotiated to keep the passengers on; and each row; when reached; would stand up while we inspected (not my ideal choice of avenues; but I was then being micro managed by the Chief Pilot.) Before I could even attempt this action; the agents deboarded the passengers. During my review of 5 pages of NEFs and MELs; we arrived at several NEFs that were non compliant or incorrectly entered: 1: Seat pockets for row X a and b had been entered into the DMIL and there is no row X on a CRJ-200 (REF CPO 'It has been flying around for days; its good') Maintenance was called out to correct this paperwork error. 2: NEF I-6 AFDL Galley light lens cover damage. We found slight damage to one of the covers; but the NEF had qualifiers that the light had to function. This was not the case; 2 of the 4 lamps were burnt out. I made an entry into the maintenance can and the bulbs were replaced. REF CPO 'its been flying around for days......' We could have not been placed into this position had the ambush not taken place by the agents and Ramp Tower; or the subsequent calls to the CPO by an agent intending to bully; and intimidate myself and my crew. During our flight; we also received a Nose Wheel Steering INOP caution MSG on approach. QRH was completed successfully with a reset. Entry was made into the Log; along with an entry for 'Display Cool' caution MSG; Again QRH completed to full checklist and no avail. While descending and weighing options of Nearest Suitable airport; MSG extinguished at 14;000 feet. Distances at this point; to possible diversion airports and destination were nearly equal. The decision was made; after discussion with Dispatch; to continue. After landing the aircraft was removed from service by Maintenance and taken to hangar. This ambush by gate agents; in my opinion was a safety of flight issue. They were intent on letting me know who was boss of my flight. In my many years of service; I have never had 4 agents waiting on me at the gate. This by all means was 'Interference with a crew member in the performance of their duties' 121.580 Prohibition on interference with crewmembers. No person may assault; threaten; intimidate; or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part. [Doc. No. FAA-1998-4954; 64 FR 1080; Jan. 7; 1999] In my opinion; the best course of action that could have been taken was to allow the crew to complete their required tasks; undaunted. Support from our Chief Pilot's Office; when an agent calls them up to intimidate them and us; and not allow us to complete our required tasks. A better direction by the CPO would be 'Do what the captain requests; we will follow up' end of conversation. Many years of training and experience by our seasoned; professional crews; grant them the good judgment to determine and work through these issues; not to be undermined by a non-pilot/flight attendant/crew member; who's only aviation career qualifications are: they answered an advertisement in the help wanted section of the newspaper.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain describes an incident with gate agents boarding passengers after the agents had been told not to board until instructed to do so. The Chief Pilot becomes involved and eventually the passengers are removed so that multiple NEF logbook write ups for the cabin can be checked. The reporter states that the agents' actions amount to interference with a flight crew in the performance of their duties.