EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Prior to the flight I checked the maintenance status of the aircraft via the pilot portal and observed the Aileron Disconnection light was deferred and the cabin window shade at seat 7A was stuck and both were properly deferred.When I arrived at the airport; I was told that the aircraft had an open maintenance item and I would need to speak with the [Maintenance Control] regarding the status of the airplane. I called the [Maintenance Control] and was advised that the prior evening the 'spoiler fail' message came on during taxi in. For more than 2 hours we worked with three maintenance techs and the [Maintenance Control] to troubleshoot the issue. This including three separate taxi tests; one after each Maintenance Action was completed; in order to get the airplane back in service.My concern is that we had an aircraft that was assigned to go fly and had been released to do so; however our maintenance records were are not updated to reflect that the aircraft was not currently airworthy. This should not be occurring.After a delay; with several electric panels on the airplane having been opened up during the Maintenance Actions to correct the spoiler failure issue; we departed the gate and taxied to Runway XXR for takeoff to ZZZ. We had an uneventful taxi out and we were cleared for takeoff. As we were passing 100 kts we heard a single cabin to cockpit chime. I elected to continue the departure. When passing 1;500 ft we heard a second cabin to cockpit chime and we answered the call. Our F/A (Flight Attendant) advised that she is seeing white smoke in the cabin around row 5.We advised ATC of the report of smoke in the cabin and asked to return to ZZZ. We were given a 270 degree radar vector heading which would not result in an immediate return to the airport. I continued the turn towards the airport and advised the F/O (First Officer) to [request priority handling] and he did so. We asked that the fire trucks meet the airplane. After a few minutes; I called the F/A and asked if there was any change in the smoke entering the cabin and she said that she was still seeing the white smoke coming from the floor area around seat 5A but it did not appear to be getting any worse. I made a PA announcement and informed the passengers of our intentions to return to ZZZ.We continued with vectors to the ILS XXR and conducted an uneventful landing on Runway XXR in ZZZ. After clearing the runway; we stopped the airplane and I again contacted our F/A to get an update on the status of the cabin and the smoke. She indicated that it was still visible from row 5 and we agreed that it was safe to taxi back to the gate with the fire trucks following us.Once at the gate; the fire fighters boarded the aircraft and conducted an inspection of the area and did not see anything wrong. We deplaned the passengers normally and contacted [Operations] Control and the [Maintenance Control].It was determined that the 'white smoke' that the F/A observed was most likely condensation from the air cycle machine that was very effective at cooling the humid air to a point at which 'snow balls' and 'white condensation vapor' was being blown from the floor vent in the area of seat 5A. Our newly hired Flight Attendant had never seen this occur before and did not recognize what was happening. She took the conservative course of action and reported what she was observing to us.Since our F/A had tried to contact us while we were in the high speed portion of the takeoff run and having just had several hours of observing Maintenance Tech's accessing multiple panels on the aircraft; I immediately suspected the worse (that we did have some type of smoke in the cabin) and I did not follow up in flight with more probing questions of our F/A about the type of white smoke or odor associated with it; which with the benefit now of 20/20 hindsight; I should have. Since our aircraft are staffed with a single Flight Attendant; I would suggest that during their initial training; our flight attendants be shown a video of what this condensation from the air cycle machine looks like; so they are not seeing it for the first time by themselves; while on a revenue flight with passengers.Suggestion: In the future; I will be asking more probing questions and possibly opening the cockpit door to observe the cabin before declaring an emergency and diverting. Our new flight attendants need training on this issue so they don't see it for the first time alone. Our maintenance procedures need to be reviewed so that an airplane that is NOT airworthy is not assigned to go fly.
EMB135 Captain reported air return after takeoff due to Flight Attendant erroneously identifying condensation as smoke in passenger cabin.