Narrative:

Our flight was canceled. The inbound crew write-up stated that vibrations were felt in the rudder pedals and on the cockpit floor between 230 and 250 kts. And at fl 380. So we were reassigned to ferry this aircraft. When we arrived at the plane for preflight; there was a spotting message but only a visual check of the outside of the aircraft had been performed and a complete check of rudder throw observed inside and outside. As a crew; we were very uncomfortable that we were being asked to ferry 5 hours; over 3 of which would be over water; with so little inspection done of the flight controls- the rudders specifically. We talked with the mechanic.as a crew; we felt that the exterior tail panels should be removed and all of the rudder linkages be inspected. So; we requested that from the mechanic and put it in the aircraft logbook. When talking with engineering over the phone; we told them that we wanted a pre-ferry bill of work to be issued from them with specific instructions for what maintenance needed to accomplish. Engineering balked at issuing a bill of work; saying that putting a write-up in the logbook would then require the mechanic to accomplish all of the same maintenance procedural steps. I also pointed out that this was a complex procedure and that we as a line crew should probably not be the ones to ferry the flight to ZZZ. Engineering discussed and then did decide that this was a job for test pilots; so we were removed from the ferry. I do not know if a bill of work was issued; but we did leave a writeup in the aircraft logbook requiring that all rudder linkages be inspected.I think that engineering felt that this was an ok thing for line pilots to do; to ferry an aircraft with rudder vibrations. Also; I was told over the phone that airbus aircraft have these vibration problems at high altitudes. But we protested as a crew. In our almost [X] years of combined time on the A319; A320; and A321; we had never experienced this or heard of others experiencing it. We just don't think that this was a situation that line pilots should be handling even though maintenance/engineering was obviously ok with it initially.the gpm 10.1.3 par 3d states that in complex cases; test pilots not line pilots should be used. Thankfully; engineering came to this conclusion; but we had to nudge them to that decision. Also; I just do not understand why engineering was hesitant to issue a bill of work when they were going to have to do that anyway with the test pilots. For me; the bottom line is to follow all written guidance; whether it is FAA or [company's] own maintenance manuals.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Captain reported refusing the aircraft for a ferry flight and insisted that test pilots perform this flight per GMM.

Narrative: Our flight was canceled. The inbound crew write-up stated that vibrations were felt in the rudder pedals and on the cockpit floor between 230 and 250 kts. and at FL 380. So we were reassigned to ferry this aircraft. When we arrived at the plane for preflight; there was a spotting message but only a visual check of the outside of the aircraft had been performed and a complete check of rudder throw observed inside and outside. As a crew; we were very uncomfortable that we were being asked to ferry 5 hours; over 3 of which would be over water; with so little inspection done of the flight controls- the rudders specifically. We talked with the mechanic.As a crew; we felt that the exterior tail panels should be removed and all of the rudder linkages be inspected. So; we requested that from the Mechanic and put it in the aircraft logbook. When talking with Engineering over the phone; we told them that we wanted a Pre-Ferry Bill of Work to be issued from them with specific instructions for what Maintenance needed to accomplish. Engineering balked at issuing a Bill of Work; saying that putting a write-up in the logbook would then require the mechanic to accomplish all of the same maintenance procedural steps. I also pointed out that this was a complex procedure and that we as a line crew should probably not be the ones to ferry the flight to ZZZ. Engineering discussed and then did decide that this was a job for Test Pilots; so we were removed from the ferry. I do not know if a Bill of Work was issued; but we did leave a writeup in the aircraft logbook requiring that all rudder linkages be inspected.I think that Engineering felt that this was an OK thing for line pilots to do; to ferry an aircraft with rudder vibrations. Also; I was told over the phone that Airbus aircraft have these vibration problems at high altitudes. But we protested as a crew. In our almost [X] years of combined time on the A319; A320; and A321; we had never experienced this or heard of others experiencing it. We just don't think that this was a situation that line pilots should be handling even though Maintenance/Engineering was obviously OK with it initially.The GPM 10.1.3 Par 3d states that in complex cases; test pilots not line pilots should be used. Thankfully; Engineering came to this conclusion; but we had to nudge them to that decision. Also; I just do not understand why Engineering was hesitant to issue a Bill of Work when they were going to have to do that anyway with the test pilots. For me; the bottom line is to follow all written guidance; whether it is FAA or [company's] own maintenance manuals.

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.