Air carrier flight crew ferries aircraft which should have had company test pilots flying.

Attributes
ACN	202408
Time
Date	199202
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sju
State Reference	PR
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 3 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : cfi pilot : instrument pilot : flight engineer pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 275 flight time total : 4000
ASRS Report	202408
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical non adherence : published procedure non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : unable
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

We arrived at sju for a flight to bna. The aircraft had spent the night thus our originating preflight, thorough preflight, was done. The engineer found the brakes to be leaking internally beyond limits when the hydraulic pumps were turned off. Maintenance worked on the aircraft all day. Did not solve the problem. We, the cockpit crew, went to hotel after 12 hours at airport on duty. Flight attendants were released. Dispatch wanted us with the aircraft to ferry it to mia when it was fixed. On the next day we went to the airport and were told we would ferry the aircraft but the problem had not been fixed. They were out of parts and ideas. We went on our way making sure we had the proper logbook entries and release from maintenance. En route the captain got to wondering if we were legal. Maybe a test pilot crew should be flying it. He looked in our company manual and he was right. Only under provisions of our MEL could we, a line crew, ferry the aircraft. Brakes were required by the MEL so we were illegal. From a safety standpoint we all felt ok but the book said no. Dispatch, maintenance or anyone else never brought the limitations up.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLC FERRIES ACFT WHICH SHOULD HAVE HAD COMPANY TEST PLTS FLYING.

Narrative: WE ARRIVED AT SJU FOR A FLT TO BNA. THE ACFT HAD SPENT THE NIGHT THUS OUR ORIGINATING PREFLT, THOROUGH PREFLT, WAS DONE. THE ENGINEER FOUND THE BRAKES TO BE LEAKING INTERNALLY BEYOND LIMITS WHEN THE HYD PUMPS WERE TURNED OFF. MAINT WORKED ON THE ACFT ALL DAY. DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. WE, THE COCKPIT CREW, WENT TO HOTEL AFTER 12 HRS AT ARPT ON DUTY. FLT ATTENDANTS WERE RELEASED. DISPATCH WANTED US WITH THE ACFT TO FERRY IT TO MIA WHEN IT WAS FIXED. ON THE NEXT DAY WE WENT TO THE ARPT AND WERE TOLD WE WOULD FERRY THE ACFT BUT THE PROBLEM HAD NOT BEEN FIXED. THEY WERE OUT OF PARTS AND IDEAS. WE WENT ON OUR WAY MAKING SURE WE HAD THE PROPER LOGBOOK ENTRIES AND RELEASE FROM MAINT. ENRTE THE CAPT GOT TO WONDERING IF WE WERE LEGAL. MAYBE A TEST PLT CREW SHOULD BE FLYING IT. HE LOOKED IN OUR COMPANY MANUAL AND HE WAS RIGHT. ONLY UNDER PROVISIONS OF OUR MEL COULD WE, A LINE CREW, FERRY THE ACFT. BRAKES WERE REQUIRED BY THE MEL SO WE WERE ILLEGAL. FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT WE ALL FELT OK BUT THE BOOK SAID NO. DISPATCH, MAINT OR ANYONE ELSE NEVER BROUGHT THE LIMITATIONS UP.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.