Narrative:

A company pilot was flying an small aircraft on a cargo flight from vji, va, to ric, va, with a stop in roa, va. He had complained of alternator problems and had determined that the flight could not continue past roa. Another aircraft was dispatched to pick up the cargo and the flight continued uneventfully in the second aircraft. On oct/mon/93, I flew a passenger plane to roa and took a mechanic along to inspect the disabled aircraft. On landing in roa, I pointed out the aircraft to the mechanic and continued with my own duties, taking the passenger to the main terminal. On returning, about 20 mins later, the mechanic had the cowling off and was working about the engine compartment. I asked him to check the battery and left him. 30-45 mins later he told me the battery was low and needed charging which was arranged with the local FBO. The mechanic determined that the alternator could not be satisfactorily repaired since he lacked the necessary tools with which to complete the work. He consulted the director of maintenance in the richmond office whereby he was told that we should fly back to richmond with no mention of obtaining a ferry permit. In the interim I received instructions from the company president via the office secretary to fly the plane back, again with no mention of a ferry permit. I, myself, was not aware that a ferry permit would have been required. A preflight was completed while the mechanic was still working on the alternator. Mistakenly trusting the mechanic to have completed a temporary repair and to have signed it off, I did not rechk his work. The fact that the mechanic was willing to return in the aircraft reinforced my belief that the repairs made were satisfactory. The flight was to be conducted day/VFR and I did not feel that this problem would endanger the flight in any way. Since I was aware that we may have continued alternator problems, I minimized the electrical loads but did retract the undercarriage. Contact was made with ZDC to provide flight following through lynchburg's airspace. The flight went without incident until contact with richmond approach when the radios showed signs of diminished power. The gear was lowered by the emergency selector being placed in the freefall mode. After clearance to land was obtained from the tower I experienced electrical failure and on shooting a low approach decided to go around to rechk gear down and locked. After checking for light signals from the tower, but not seeing any, and recalling that traffic was light prior to radio failure, I decided to return and land. Extra vigilance was maintained and the flight terminated uneventfully. After landing I taxied in on light signals and immediately phoned the tower to explain the situation. The tower supervisor told me that everything was ok and that they had in fact been sending me clearance to land via the lights. Comments: repairs to the airplane were not considered necessary since the airplane was thought flyable in the prevailing WX conditions and we had a maintenance base within 1 hour's flight. Another basis for my not questioning the president's and the director of maintenance's decision to go ahead and ferry the plane back to richmond was far 91.205. This regulation describes the required equipment and no electrical generating source is specified for day/VFR flight. At this time I did not recall far 91.213(D)(2)(I) which has been pointed out to me by the FAA since the incident. I was under the impression that the flight was, at all times, legal.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX PLT FERRIED ACFT TO MAINT BASE WITHOUT REQUIRED SPECIAL FERRY PERMIT.

Narrative: A COMPANY PLT WAS FLYING AN SMA ON A CARGO FLT FROM VJI, VA, TO RIC, VA, WITH A STOP IN ROA, VA. HE HAD COMPLAINED OF ALTERNATOR PROBS AND HAD DETERMINED THAT THE FLT COULD NOT CONTINUE PAST ROA. ANOTHER ACFT WAS DISPATCHED TO PICK UP THE CARGO AND THE FLT CONTINUED UNEVENTFULLY IN THE SECOND ACFT. ON OCT/MON/93, I FLEW A PAX PLANE TO ROA AND TOOK A MECH ALONG TO INSPECT THE DISABLED ACFT. ON LNDG IN ROA, I POINTED OUT THE ACFT TO THE MECH AND CONTINUED WITH MY OWN DUTIES, TAKING THE PAX TO THE MAIN TERMINAL. ON RETURNING, ABOUT 20 MINS LATER, THE MECH HAD THE COWLING OFF AND WAS WORKING ABOUT THE ENG COMPARTMENT. I ASKED HIM TO CHK THE BATTERY AND LEFT HIM. 30-45 MINS LATER HE TOLD ME THE BATTERY WAS LOW AND NEEDED CHARGING WHICH WAS ARRANGED WITH THE LCL FBO. THE MECH DETERMINED THAT THE ALTERNATOR COULD NOT BE SATISFACTORILY REPAIRED SINCE HE LACKED THE NECESSARY TOOLS WITH WHICH TO COMPLETE THE WORK. HE CONSULTED THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT IN THE RICHMOND OFFICE WHEREBY HE WAS TOLD THAT WE SHOULD FLY BACK TO RICHMOND WITH NO MENTION OF OBTAINING A FERRY PERMIT. IN THE INTERIM I RECEIVED INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COMPANY PRESIDENT VIA THE OFFICE SECRETARY TO FLY THE PLANE BACK, AGAIN WITH NO MENTION OF A FERRY PERMIT. I, MYSELF, WAS NOT AWARE THAT A FERRY PERMIT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED. A PREFLT WAS COMPLETED WHILE THE MECH WAS STILL WORKING ON THE ALTERNATOR. MISTAKENLY TRUSTING THE MECH TO HAVE COMPLETED A TEMPORARY REPAIR AND TO HAVE SIGNED IT OFF, I DID NOT RECHK HIS WORK. THE FACT THAT THE MECH WAS WILLING TO RETURN IN THE ACFT REINFORCED MY BELIEF THAT THE REPAIRS MADE WERE SATISFACTORY. THE FLT WAS TO BE CONDUCTED DAY/VFR AND I DID NOT FEEL THAT THIS PROB WOULD ENDANGER THE FLT IN ANY WAY. SINCE I WAS AWARE THAT WE MAY HAVE CONTINUED ALTERNATOR PROBS, I MINIMIZED THE ELECTRICAL LOADS BUT DID RETRACT THE UNDERCARRIAGE. CONTACT WAS MADE WITH ZDC TO PROVIDE FLT FOLLOWING THROUGH LYNCHBURG'S AIRSPACE. THE FLT WENT WITHOUT INCIDENT UNTIL CONTACT WITH RICHMOND APCH WHEN THE RADIOS SHOWED SIGNS OF DIMINISHED PWR. THE GEAR WAS LOWERED BY THE EMER SELECTOR BEING PLACED IN THE FREEFALL MODE. AFTER CLRNC TO LAND WAS OBTAINED FROM THE TWR I EXPERIENCED ELECTRICAL FAILURE AND ON SHOOTING A LOW APCH DECIDED TO GAR TO RECHK GEAR DOWN AND LOCKED. AFTER CHKING FOR LIGHT SIGNALS FROM THE TWR, BUT NOT SEEING ANY, AND RECALLING THAT TFC WAS LIGHT PRIOR TO RADIO FAILURE, I DECIDED TO RETURN AND LAND. EXTRA VIGILANCE WAS MAINTAINED AND THE FLT TERMINATED UNEVENTFULLY. AFTER LNDG I TAXIED IN ON LIGHT SIGNALS AND IMMEDIATELY PHONED THE TWR TO EXPLAIN THE SIT. THE TWR SUPVR TOLD ME THAT EVERYTHING WAS OK AND THAT THEY HAD IN FACT BEEN SENDING ME CLRNC TO LAND VIA THE LIGHTS. COMMENTS: REPAIRS TO THE AIRPLANE WERE NOT CONSIDERED NECESSARY SINCE THE AIRPLANE WAS THOUGHT FLYABLE IN THE PREVAILING WX CONDITIONS AND WE HAD A MAINT BASE WITHIN 1 HR'S FLT. ANOTHER BASIS FOR MY NOT QUESTIONING THE PRESIDENT'S AND THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT'S DECISION TO GO AHEAD AND FERRY THE PLANE BACK TO RICHMOND WAS FAR 91.205. THIS REG DESCRIBES THE REQUIRED EQUIP AND NO ELECTRICAL GENERATING SOURCE IS SPECIFIED FOR DAY/VFR FLT. AT THIS TIME I DID NOT RECALL FAR 91.213(D)(2)(I) WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO ME BY THE FAA SINCE THE INCIDENT. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE FLT WAS, AT ALL TIMES, LEGAL.

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.