Narrative:

On dec/xx/94 we were sent to sjc to ferry a B-727 for our air carrier. The #2 engine was inoperative and we were to perform a 2 engine ferry flight to dal. We reviewed all of the procedures and requirements for a 2 engine ferry flight which included the WX at both the departure and destination to be VFR (1000 ft and 3 mi), dry runways, and the airplane to be ferried to a facility at which repairs could be made. We found that the WX at dal was below VFR and was forecast to remain that way for the rest of the day. The captain informed the company of this and told them that we could not go. At this point they tried to get us to go to sat so that the airplane would be closer to dallas. We informed them that we would not do this because it was in violation of far part 91 which says that we could only ferry the plane to a point where repairs could be made. After several calls between the captain and the company it was decided that we would go back to the hotel and try again the next day. Upon arrival at the hotel we were informed to call the company. When the captain called they said that they wanted us to go back to the airplane and ferry it to sat because they had arranged for the engine to be replaced by the abc company in sat. They also had arranged for an air carrier mechanic to be there to coordination the engine change. At this point we all agreed to go ahead with the flight. We made sure that we had met all of the requirements for the ferry flight including getting a new ferry permit from sjc to sat. The flight was completed without incident. After our arrival at the abc company in sat, the captain called our air carrier to inform them of our arrival and to arrange for our transportation back to dallas. At this point, he was informed that the company had a change of plans and that the aircraft would not be repaired in sat, that we would stay the night and then ferry the plane again the next day to dal. The captain protested their actions and they implied that they would take action against the captain if he refused to complete the flight. We also spoke with a representative from the abc company and the air carrier mechanic sent from houston. They also were informed initially that the engine was to be changed by abc company in sat. However, at some point after our departure from sjc and before our arrival in sat the company changed their plans. We ended up flying the plane to dal the next day for fear that we would lose our jobs. Again, we made sure that all of the 2 engine ferry requirements were met, including getting another ferry permit for flight from sat to dal. The flight was completed without incident. We feel that the company intentionally misled us by what they did. They showed a total disregard for the intent of the FARS that allow for a 2 engine ferry of a B-727 to a base where repairs could be made. I feel that the FAA should not have issued the second 2 engine ferry permit and should have questioned air carrier as to why they wanted another ferry permit for the same aircraft that was issued one the day before. I think that the FAA should have some kind of checks and procedures to prevent this kind of thing from happening again in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B-727 FREIGHTER IN A QUESTIONABLE FERRY OP.

Narrative: ON DEC/XX/94 WE WERE SENT TO SJC TO FERRY A B-727 FOR OUR ACR. THE #2 ENG WAS INOP AND WE WERE TO PERFORM A 2 ENG FERRY FLT TO DAL. WE REVIEWED ALL OF THE PROCS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A 2 ENG FERRY FLT WHICH INCLUDED THE WX AT BOTH THE DEP AND DEST TO BE VFR (1000 FT AND 3 MI), DRY RWYS, AND THE AIRPLANE TO BE FERRIED TO A FACILITY AT WHICH REPAIRS COULD BE MADE. WE FOUND THAT THE WX AT DAL WAS BELOW VFR AND WAS FORECAST TO REMAIN THAT WAY FOR THE REST OF THE DAY. THE CAPT INFORMED THE COMPANY OF THIS AND TOLD THEM THAT WE COULD NOT GO. AT THIS POINT THEY TRIED TO GET US TO GO TO SAT SO THAT THE AIRPLANE WOULD BE CLOSER TO DALLAS. WE INFORMED THEM THAT WE WOULD NOT DO THIS BECAUSE IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF FAR PART 91 WHICH SAYS THAT WE COULD ONLY FERRY THE PLANE TO A POINT WHERE REPAIRS COULD BE MADE. AFTER SEVERAL CALLS BTWN THE CAPT AND THE COMPANY IT WAS DECIDED THAT WE WOULD GO BACK TO THE HOTEL AND TRY AGAIN THE NEXT DAY. UPON ARR AT THE HOTEL WE WERE INFORMED TO CALL THE COMPANY. WHEN THE CAPT CALLED THEY SAID THAT THEY WANTED US TO GO BACK TO THE AIRPLANE AND FERRY IT TO SAT BECAUSE THEY HAD ARRANGED FOR THE ENG TO BE REPLACED BY THE ABC COMPANY IN SAT. THEY ALSO HAD ARRANGED FOR AN ACR MECH TO BE THERE TO COORD THE ENG CHANGE. AT THIS POINT WE ALL AGREED TO GO AHEAD WITH THE FLT. WE MADE SURE THAT WE HAD MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FERRY FLT INCLUDING GETTING A NEW FERRY PERMIT FROM SJC TO SAT. THE FLT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. AFTER OUR ARR AT THE ABC COMPANY IN SAT, THE CAPT CALLED OUR ACR TO INFORM THEM OF OUR ARR AND TO ARRANGE FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION BACK TO DALLAS. AT THIS POINT, HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE COMPANY HAD A CHANGE OF PLANS AND THAT THE ACFT WOULD NOT BE REPAIRED IN SAT, THAT WE WOULD STAY THE NIGHT AND THEN FERRY THE PLANE AGAIN THE NEXT DAY TO DAL. THE CAPT PROTESTED THEIR ACTIONS AND THEY IMPLIED THAT THEY WOULD TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE CAPT IF HE REFUSED TO COMPLETE THE FLT. WE ALSO SPOKE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE ABC COMPANY AND THE ACR MECH SENT FROM HOUSTON. THEY ALSO WERE INFORMED INITIALLY THAT THE ENG WAS TO BE CHANGED BY ABC COMPANY IN SAT. HOWEVER, AT SOME POINT AFTER OUR DEP FROM SJC AND BEFORE OUR ARR IN SAT THE COMPANY CHANGED THEIR PLANS. WE ENDED UP FLYING THE PLANE TO DAL THE NEXT DAY FOR FEAR THAT WE WOULD LOSE OUR JOBS. AGAIN, WE MADE SURE THAT ALL OF THE 2 ENG FERRY REQUIREMENTS WERE MET, INCLUDING GETTING ANOTHER FERRY PERMIT FOR FLT FROM SAT TO DAL. THE FLT WAS COMPLETED WITHOUT INCIDENT. WE FEEL THAT THE COMPANY INTENTIONALLY MISLED US BY WHAT THEY DID. THEY SHOWED A TOTAL DISREGARD FOR THE INTENT OF THE FARS THAT ALLOW FOR A 2 ENG FERRY OF A B-727 TO A BASE WHERE REPAIRS COULD BE MADE. I FEEL THAT THE FAA SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED THE SECOND 2 ENG FERRY PERMIT AND SHOULD HAVE QUESTIONED ACR AS TO WHY THEY WANTED ANOTHER FERRY PERMIT FOR THE SAME ACFT THAT WAS ISSUED ONE THE DAY BEFORE. I THINK THAT THE FAA SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF CHKS AND PROCS TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF THING FROM HAPPENING AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

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.