Narrative:

We were tasked with the ferry of aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1. The flight was authorized by [a] message; which denoted the aircraft movement as an [maintenance ferry flight] for the purpose of 'retirement.'prior to the flight I had numerous questions concerning the open items and their status. We viewed the logbook and specifically asked about the status of the open items and it was pointed out to us that '[engineering department] concurred with the ferry' and that all items where addressed by them. We were also told that this is how it is done now.there were approximately 18 items that were open. Some of these had engineering authorization (ea) references in the discrepancy section; others did not; but most had no balancing entry in the action taken section. Other than the blanket statement releasing the aircraft for the [maintenance ferry flight]; there is no way from an aircrew standpoint to verify the status of the aircraft with anything other than a verbal from the manager/supervisor giving them the logbook. For example; many of the entries just state that an item or inspection is past due; there is no documentation below that entry stating why that item is deferred or who has authorized flight with this item open and the acceptable data reference supporting leaving the item open.for example; the first [card] on the list showed it was out of date. [It] is a check relating to ad 2015-21-09. It was left open per the logbook and no ea or other reference to its status was made. We queried if the card had been performed and the response we got was that it had not and since [engineering department] concurred it was not required to be accomplished prior to flight. I asked that if the card had not been completed should the APU be placarded; the response was no.after reading the ad I believe we may have flown with an open ad that should have been closed out (or at the very least had the APU placarded inoperative) and after having reviewed this example there may have been others not in compliance. Having done numerous [maintenance ferry flights] in the last several weeks; I have seen a lot of confusion on how these flights need to be documented. The following day I flew [a different aircraft] to ZZZ and the maintenance (mx) personnel had complied with [the] same card. When I queried the mx personnel they said that [the] card was required to be complied with. I looked up the ad and after reading still have a question to this day as to its required completion prior to flight.the above can affect the safety of all line pilots who perform the [maintenance ferry] flights. 1. Annotate a ferry to specifically denote what the ferry 'is' and 'for' both on the message and flight plan. For example; is the aircraft going to be scrapped; donated; sold or going to storage? What effect does the term 'retirement' or 'lease return' have on the ferry? Is it a 'special' or 'spotting' ferry? If it is a 'special' does it require an FAA issued special ferry permit vs issued by [my company]?2. Provide a reference and subject matter expert contact for each item that is to remain open for the flight.3. Provide all the ea's and a copy of the basic operating weight to the flight crew for review prior to a special ferry.I believe the dispatching and logbook procedures for what in my opinion be appropriately classified as a 'special ferry' need to be reviewed as soon as possible. Note: flight manual part 1 now has a reference to special ferry permit flights (which is a recent change) however; they are not referenced as such on any of the spotting message paperwork or dispatch paperwork. Using the terminology of [maintenance ferry flight] on the spotting is a term that can have numerous connotations. I also believe that all mechanical discrepancies or overdue inspections etc. Need a balancing entry to help alleviate any confusion. If an inspection can be left open/overdue; a statement in the action taken section as to why it can be left open; i.e. Engineering authorization and # or some other reason it can be deferred; needs to be documented to alleviate any question as to status of the aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767-300 Captain reported being assigned to accomplish a Maintenance Ferry Flight for the purpose of retirement with open items in the logbook.

Narrative: We were tasked with the ferry of Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1. The flight was authorized by [a] message; which denoted the aircraft movement as an [maintenance ferry flight] for the purpose of 'retirement.'Prior to the flight I had numerous questions concerning the open items and their status. We viewed the logbook and specifically asked about the status of the open items and it was pointed out to us that '[engineering department] concurred with the ferry' and that all items where addressed by them. We were also told that this is how it is done now.There were approximately 18 items that were open. Some of these had Engineering Authorization (EA) references in the discrepancy section; others did not; but most had no balancing entry in the action taken section. Other than the blanket statement releasing the aircraft for the [maintenance ferry flight]; there is no way from an aircrew standpoint to verify the status of the aircraft with anything other than a verbal from the manager/supervisor giving them the logbook. For example; many of the entries just state that an item or inspection is past due; there is no documentation below that entry stating why that item is deferred or who has authorized flight with this item open and the acceptable data reference supporting leaving the item open.For example; the first [card] on the list showed it was out of date. [It] is a check relating to AD 2015-21-09. It was left open per the logbook and no EA or other reference to its status was made. We queried if the card had been performed and the response we got was that it had not and since [engineering department] concurred it was not required to be accomplished prior to flight. I asked that if the card had not been completed should the APU be placarded; the response was no.After reading the AD I believe we may have flown with an open AD that should have been closed out (or at the very least had the APU placarded inoperative) and after having reviewed this example there may have been others not in compliance. Having done numerous [maintenance ferry flights] in the last several weeks; I have seen a lot of confusion on how these flights need to be documented. The following day I flew [a different aircraft] to ZZZ and the Maintenance (MX) personnel had complied with [the] same card. When I queried the MX personnel they said that [the] card was required to be complied with. I looked up the AD and after reading still have a question to this day as to its required completion prior to flight.The above can affect the safety of all line pilots who perform the [maintenance ferry] flights. 1. Annotate a ferry to specifically denote what the ferry 'is' and 'for' both on the message and flight plan. For example; is the aircraft going to be scrapped; donated; sold or going to storage? What effect does the term 'retirement' or 'lease return' have on the ferry? Is it a 'Special' or 'spotting' ferry? If it is a 'Special' does it require an FAA issued Special Ferry Permit vs issued by [my company]?2. Provide a reference and Subject Matter Expert contact for each item that is to remain open for the flight.3. Provide all the EA's and a copy of the Basic Operating Weight to the flight crew for review prior to a Special Ferry.I believe the dispatching and logbook procedures for what in my opinion be appropriately classified as a 'Special Ferry' need to be reviewed as soon as possible. NOTE: Flight Manual Part 1 now has a reference to Special Ferry Permit flights (which is a recent change) however; they are not referenced as such on any of the spotting message paperwork or dispatch paperwork. Using the terminology of [maintenance ferry flight] on the spotting is a term that can have numerous connotations. I also believe that ALL MECHANICAL DISCREPANCIES or overdue inspections etc. need a balancing entry to help alleviate any confusion. If an inspection can be left open/overdue; a statement in the action taken section as to why it can be left open; i.e. engineering authorization and # or some other reason it can be deferred; needs to be documented to alleviate any question as to status of the aircraft.

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.