Narrative:

I was approached by shift manager; he requested that I send a ferry permit for an aircraft that was out of service to fly with airframe vibrations. I tried to tell him that I did not feel comfortable with the ferry as the aircraft had two known discrepancies and one unknown. The elevator hinge fittings were worn (I was ok with a maintenance ferry with this condition. We were out of our limits; but still within airbus limits). All four elevator servos were misadjusted to 1 degree nose up; rather than .5 degree like the aircraft maintenance manual (amm); a service bulletin and an airworthiness directive states (I was not ok with this).an engineering change release authorization (ecra) was issued by engineering that stated 'it is acceptable to operate the aircraft with an elevator bias of 1.0 degree nose up for the purposes of ferry flight as it only implies a minor cost fuel penalty'. I tried to ask the shift manager what exactly the additional fuel burn would be. How will dispatch plan this additional fuel burn? (I was not ok with this either) if maintenance had the rig boards on the aircraft; why did they not adjust the elevator servos? The manager immediately said; 'the aircraft has been flying this way; so fine; I will find someone else to send the ferry permit'; and turned his back on me. He asked the controller I was working with on the airbus desk; to call maintenance and have them sign off the open items for 'hinge wear and elevator servos out of rig' (in violation of general maintenance manual). As the controller is not yet qualified to send a ferry permit; he then went to the other end of the room and asked a relief controller to send the ferry permit.I feel the shift manager violated several human factors. Pressure - he tried to get me to send a ferry permit without considering any of my questions.lack of teamwork - rather than addressing my concerns; he immediately turned his back and went to another controller (not an airbus maintenance controller) to get him to send a ferry permit. Lack of awareness - because maintenance already had the rigging equipment in place; they could have simply adjusted the servos; instead of signing the items off per the ecra (note: now the discrepancies have been signed off per the ecra). Stress-the manager is putting undo stress on me to send a ferry permit without my concurrence. If he is so confident that everything is ok; then why does he not send the permit himself? Manager's are level 3. I did not commit a human factor myself in that I did not illustrate a 'lack of assertivness'. I tried to voice my concerns and was very rudely excused and ignored.maintenance could have rigged the elevators (now the ferry permit will have to say that the reason for ferry - misadjusted elevator servos and worn elevator hinge bearings). However; as the two logs were signed off; the remaining item states the aircraft has airframe vibrations? The logs should not have been signed off; per the procedure; the items should have been [carried forward]...if authority from an ecra with concurrence from airbus as they are 'out of limits' per the aircraft maintenance manual. Note: the adjustment of the elevator servos is driven by a sb and an ad. We are clearly in violation of the ad. I understand that we are not flying part 121; however; the statement must be made 'aircraft safe for ferry flight' by a mechanic. Furthermore; how can dispatch determine the correct fuel load for an unknown fuel burn as dictated by an ecra? I wonder how the aircraft will be 'planned' for fuel burn. I wonder if the flight crew will know that they are flying an aircraft out of ad compliance. I understand that the aircraft will likely fly without incident; but I cannot; in good conscience; put my name on a ferry permit for a rig that should have been adjusted prior to flight and 'unknown' fuel penalty.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: When a ferry permit was requested for an Airbus 319; the Maintenance Controller refused because he was uncomfortable with the items that were deferred.

Narrative: I was approached by Shift Manager; he requested that I send a Ferry Permit for an aircraft that was out of service to fly with Airframe Vibrations. I tried to tell him that I did not feel comfortable with the ferry as the aircraft had two known discrepancies and one unknown. The elevator hinge fittings were worn (I was ok with a maintenance ferry with this condition. We were out of our limits; but still within Airbus limits). All four elevator servos were misadjusted to 1 degree nose up; rather than .5 degree like the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM); a Service Bulletin and an Airworthiness Directive states (I was not OK with this).An Engineering Change Release Authorization (ECRA) was issued by Engineering that stated 'IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO OPERATE THE AIRCRAFT WITH AN ELEVATOR BIAS OF 1.0 DEGREE NOSE UP FOR THE PURPOSES OF FERRY FLIGHT AS IT ONLY IMPLIES A MINOR COST FUEL PENALTY'. I tried to ask the Shift Manager what exactly the additional fuel burn would be. How will Dispatch plan this additional fuel burn? (I WAS NOT OK WITH THIS EITHER) If maintenance had the rig boards on the aircraft; why did they not adjust the elevator servos? The Manager immediately said; 'The aircraft has been flying this way; so fine; I will find someone else to send the Ferry Permit'; and turned his back on me. He asked the Controller I was working with on the Airbus desk; to call maintenance and have them sign off the open items for 'hinge wear and elevator servos out of rig' (in violation of General Maintenance Manual). As the controller is not yet qualified to send a Ferry Permit; he then went to the other end of the room and asked a relief Controller to send the Ferry Permit.I feel the Shift Manager violated several Human Factors. Pressure - he tried to get me to send a Ferry Permit without considering any of my questions.Lack of Teamwork - rather than addressing my concerns; he immediately turned his back and went to another Controller (not an Airbus Maintenance Controller) to get him to send a ferry permit. Lack of Awareness - because maintenance already had the rigging equipment in place; they could have simply adjusted the Servos; instead of signing the items off per the ECRA (note: now the discrepancies have been signed off per the ECRA). Stress-the Manager is putting undo stress on me to send a Ferry Permit without my concurrence. If he is so confident that everything is ok; then why does he not send the Permit himself? MGR's are level 3. I DID NOT COMMIT A HUMAN FACTOR MYSELF IN THAT I DID NOT ILLUSTRATE A 'LACK OF ASSERTIVNESS'. I tried to voice my concerns and was very rudely excused and ignored.Maintenance could have rigged the elevators (now the Ferry Permit will have to say that the REASON FOR FERRY - misadjusted elevator servos and worn elevator hinge bearings). However; as the two logs were signed off; the remaining item states the aircraft has airframe vibrations? The logs should not have been signed off; per the procedure; the items should have been [carried forward]...IF authority from an ECRA with concurrence from Airbus as they are 'out of limits' per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual. NOTE: the adjustment of the Elevator Servos is driven by a SB and an AD. We are clearly in violation of the AD. I understand that we are not flying part 121; however; the statement must be made 'AIRCRAFT SAFE FOR FERRY FLIGHT' by a Mechanic. Furthermore; how can Dispatch determine the correct fuel load for an unknown fuel burn as dictated by an ECRA? I wonder how the aircraft will be 'Planned' for fuel burn. I wonder if the Flight Crew will know that they are flying an aircraft out of AD compliance. I understand that the aircraft will likely fly without incident; but I cannot; in good conscience; put my name on a Ferry Permit for a rig that should have been adjusted prior to flight and 'unknown' fuel penalty.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.