Narrative:

On nov/xx/97, I was employed by FBO to fly an HS125, from tyler, tx, to sugarland, tx, and return to tyler. The purpose of the flight as was told to me by FBO was to check out the uns (GPS) system that had been installed in the aircraft by a shop in sugarland, tx. I was given a sheet that outlined the needed information, which was basically 3 GPS approachs, recording the accuracy of each approach. This was familiar to me as 2 weeks prior, I had made a similar flight in a king air I fly for another company, which had just had a GPS installed and the flight was needed for IFR certification of the unit. The difference is that this flight was to be made on 2 ferry permits because the plane did not have a certificate of airworthiness yet. It was imported from another country by FBO for resale. It did however have a united states registration certificate. I was shown the 2 ferry permits and no mention of any restrs was made by FBO mechanics or other personnel. I departed tyler VFR en route to sugarland and about 50 mi out encountered what I interpreted as WX too bad to continue to the destination. I returned to tyler and completed the 3 GPS approachs there and landed. Upon taxiing to the ramp, I was met by 3 FAA inspectors. They did not wait until the crew deplaned, but rather one of the men entered the plane and announced that this was a ramp check. The APU was still running and I had not even completed my shutdown checklist. I asked the man if he would wait until I had completed my task. He sat down in the baggage area and waited. I completed my shutdown checks and moved to the baggage area where he immediately asked to see my flight permits. I showed them the documents and he asked if I knew who the mechanic was who signed the logs. I said yes and he asked to see him too. The FAA representatives found some problems with the mechanic's sign offs and talked to him privately. They informed me that my problems existed in that I flew over a congested area and conducted 3 unauthorized approachs. I tried to ask what that meant since I thought the ferry permit was issued for this purpose. I did not receive a direct answer other than I was in violation because of my actions. One of the FAA representatives stated that they would talk about this among themselves on their way back to dallas. I am baffled and also very worried because of the possibility of action being taken against me. A ferry permit was always thought by me, to be a tool to fly an airplane during a time of deficiency to accomplish the necessary tasks to be able to return it to service. There can be numerous reasons to do this and it did not seem to me to be an abnormal reason in this instance. The general wording about 'crew only' and 'direct routing' just reminds the operator that this cannot be in any way a business or passenger flight. The wording on this ferry permit under flight purpose was worded 'maintenance, uns system.' since I had recently done the same flight in another plane it made sense to me and the fact it was on a ferry permit did not raise undue alarm. Since this incident, I have repeatedly tried to find in the FARS what a ferry permit really is and its limitations, especially regarding the crew, as I trusted the mechanic who secured the permit and the FAA who signed the permit. If there are some secret limitations or interps or rules pertaining this, I would very much like to know where in the FARS I can find them. This permit is a 'land mine' for unknowing pilots who are not warned or trained in what they can and cannot do. I have asked several pilots and mechanics to tell me where in the FARS I can find the answers, and no one could show me. If this is such a critical process, then maybe the FAA should have certified and approved 'ferry pilots' to do these types of flts, and relieve the general pilot from the dangers of this task. I really want to learn what I did wrong and find out where I could have found out the information I needed. In my 30 yrs of flying I have never had any classes of instruction regarding the ferry permit and its pitfalls, even in the CFI clinics I have attended. I did not know I was doing anything wrong and nobody told me I could not do this, and the paperwork issued by the FAA did not contain any warnings or exact explanations. I would certainly have not risked my pilot certificate and job by knowingly doing something illegal. I have worked hard to maintain a good record and reputation. I can only warn other pilots not to ever fly on a ferry permit because they are risking everything to do so. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the FAA had not contacted him further regarding this matter. He did hear that they had recontacted the FBO maintenance personnel to clarify the real purpose of the flight permit. The reporter has learned that the special flight provisions only permitted a direct route between the departure and destination and not testing over congested areas of the newly installed GPS navigation equipment. He agreed that the FAA was misled as to the purpose of the flight permit, and now has a better understanding.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF A BRITISH HAWKER HS125-700 (HS25), EXCEEDED THEIR SPECIAL FLT PERMIT WHEN MAKING SEVERAL GPS TEST INST APCHS OVER A CONGESTED AREA NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LNDG OR TAKING OFF. FAA AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTORS MET THE ACFT ON LNDG TO CHK THE ACTUAL FLT PERMIT PROVISIONS USED BY THE FLC.

Narrative: ON NOV/XX/97, I WAS EMPLOYED BY FBO TO FLY AN HS125, FROM TYLER, TX, TO SUGARLAND, TX, AND RETURN TO TYLER. THE PURPOSE OF THE FLT AS WAS TOLD TO ME BY FBO WAS TO CHK OUT THE UNS (GPS) SYS THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN THE ACFT BY A SHOP IN SUGARLAND, TX. I WAS GIVEN A SHEET THAT OUTLINED THE NEEDED INFO, WHICH WAS BASICALLY 3 GPS APCHS, RECORDING THE ACCURACY OF EACH APCH. THIS WAS FAMILIAR TO ME AS 2 WKS PRIOR, I HAD MADE A SIMILAR FLT IN A KING AIR I FLY FOR ANOTHER COMPANY, WHICH HAD JUST HAD A GPS INSTALLED AND THE FLT WAS NEEDED FOR IFR CERTIFICATION OF THE UNIT. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THIS FLT WAS TO BE MADE ON 2 FERRY PERMITS BECAUSE THE PLANE DID NOT HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF AIRWORTHINESS YET. IT WAS IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY BY FBO FOR RESALE. IT DID HOWEVER HAVE A UNITED STATES REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. I WAS SHOWN THE 2 FERRY PERMITS AND NO MENTION OF ANY RESTRS WAS MADE BY FBO MECHS OR OTHER PERSONNEL. I DEPARTED TYLER VFR ENRTE TO SUGARLAND AND ABOUT 50 MI OUT ENCOUNTERED WHAT I INTERPRETED AS WX TOO BAD TO CONTINUE TO THE DEST. I RETURNED TO TYLER AND COMPLETED THE 3 GPS APCHS THERE AND LANDED. UPON TAXIING TO THE RAMP, I WAS MET BY 3 FAA INSPECTORS. THEY DID NOT WAIT UNTIL THE CREW DEPLANED, BUT RATHER ONE OF THE MEN ENTERED THE PLANE AND ANNOUNCED THAT THIS WAS A RAMP CHK. THE APU WAS STILL RUNNING AND I HAD NOT EVEN COMPLETED MY SHUTDOWN CHKLIST. I ASKED THE MAN IF HE WOULD WAIT UNTIL I HAD COMPLETED MY TASK. HE SAT DOWN IN THE BAGGAGE AREA AND WAITED. I COMPLETED MY SHUTDOWN CHKS AND MOVED TO THE BAGGAGE AREA WHERE HE IMMEDIATELY ASKED TO SEE MY FLT PERMITS. I SHOWED THEM THE DOCUMENTS AND HE ASKED IF I KNEW WHO THE MECH WAS WHO SIGNED THE LOGS. I SAID YES AND HE ASKED TO SEE HIM TOO. THE FAA REPRESENTATIVES FOUND SOME PROBS WITH THE MECH'S SIGN OFFS AND TALKED TO HIM PRIVATELY. THEY INFORMED ME THAT MY PROBS EXISTED IN THAT I FLEW OVER A CONGESTED AREA AND CONDUCTED 3 UNAUTH APCHS. I TRIED TO ASK WHAT THAT MEANT SINCE I THOUGHT THE FERRY PERMIT WAS ISSUED FOR THIS PURPOSE. I DID NOT RECEIVE A DIRECT ANSWER OTHER THAN I WAS IN VIOLATION BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS. ONE OF THE FAA REPRESENTATIVES STATED THAT THEY WOULD TALK ABOUT THIS AMONG THEMSELVES ON THEIR WAY BACK TO DALLAS. I AM BAFFLED AND ALSO VERY WORRIED BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ACTION BEING TAKEN AGAINST ME. A FERRY PERMIT WAS ALWAYS THOUGHT BY ME, TO BE A TOOL TO FLY AN AIRPLANE DURING A TIME OF DEFICIENCY TO ACCOMPLISH THE NECESSARY TASKS TO BE ABLE TO RETURN IT TO SVC. THERE CAN BE NUMEROUS REASONS TO DO THIS AND IT DID NOT SEEM TO ME TO BE AN ABNORMAL REASON IN THIS INSTANCE. THE GENERAL WORDING ABOUT 'CREW ONLY' AND 'DIRECT ROUTING' JUST REMINDS THE OPERATOR THAT THIS CANNOT BE IN ANY WAY A BUSINESS OR PAX FLT. THE WORDING ON THIS FERRY PERMIT UNDER FLT PURPOSE WAS WORDED 'MAINT, UNS SYS.' SINCE I HAD RECENTLY DONE THE SAME FLT IN ANOTHER PLANE IT MADE SENSE TO ME AND THE FACT IT WAS ON A FERRY PERMIT DID NOT RAISE UNDUE ALARM. SINCE THIS INCIDENT, I HAVE REPEATEDLY TRIED TO FIND IN THE FARS WHAT A FERRY PERMIT REALLY IS AND ITS LIMITATIONS, ESPECIALLY REGARDING THE CREW, AS I TRUSTED THE MECH WHO SECURED THE PERMIT AND THE FAA WHO SIGNED THE PERMIT. IF THERE ARE SOME SECRET LIMITATIONS OR INTERPS OR RULES PERTAINING THIS, I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO KNOW WHERE IN THE FARS I CAN FIND THEM. THIS PERMIT IS A 'LAND MINE' FOR UNKNOWING PLTS WHO ARE NOT WARNED OR TRAINED IN WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO. I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL PLTS AND MECHS TO TELL ME WHERE IN THE FARS I CAN FIND THE ANSWERS, AND NO ONE COULD SHOW ME. IF THIS IS SUCH A CRITICAL PROCESS, THEN MAYBE THE FAA SHOULD HAVE CERTIFIED AND APPROVED 'FERRY PLTS' TO DO THESE TYPES OF FLTS, AND RELIEVE THE GENERAL PLT FROM THE DANGERS OF THIS TASK. I REALLY WANT TO LEARN WHAT I DID WRONG AND FIND OUT WHERE I COULD HAVE FOUND OUT THE INFO I NEEDED. IN MY 30 YRS OF FLYING I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY CLASSES OF INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE FERRY PERMIT AND ITS PITFALLS, EVEN IN THE CFI CLINICS I HAVE ATTENDED. I DID NOT KNOW I WAS DOING ANYTHING WRONG AND NOBODY TOLD ME I COULD NOT DO THIS, AND THE PAPERWORK ISSUED BY THE FAA DID NOT CONTAIN ANY WARNINGS OR EXACT EXPLANATIONS. I WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE NOT RISKED MY PLT CERTIFICATE AND JOB BY KNOWINGLY DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL. I HAVE WORKED HARD TO MAINTAIN A GOOD RECORD AND REPUTATION. I CAN ONLY WARN OTHER PLTS NOT TO EVER FLY ON A FERRY PERMIT BECAUSE THEY ARE RISKING EVERYTHING TO DO SO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE FAA HAD NOT CONTACTED HIM FURTHER REGARDING THIS MATTER. HE DID HEAR THAT THEY HAD RECONTACTED THE FBO MAINT PERSONNEL TO CLARIFY THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE FLT PERMIT. THE RPTR HAS LEARNED THAT THE SPECIAL FLT PROVISIONS ONLY PERMITTED A DIRECT RTE BTWN THE DEP AND DEST AND NOT TESTING OVER CONGESTED AREAS OF THE NEWLY INSTALLED GPS NAV EQUIP. HE AGREED THAT THE FAA WAS MISLED AS TO THE PURPOSE OF THE FLT PERMIT, AND NOW HAS A BETTER UNDERSTANDING.

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.