Narrative:

Our aircraft departed dtw for lex on a revenue flight. En route, the right front windshield heat failed. We were VMC all the way to lex and flight was uneventful. Discrepancy was logged in lex and maintenance control was notified. After reviewing options (ie, deferral, fix it, or ferry aircraft) maintenance control decided to conduct a ferry flight. Due to my inexperience with this procedure, I specifically asked the dispatcher for the flight to review all steps with me to legally ferry the aircraft. I was told that an FAA designated maintenance person from our company, along with a chief pilot would be consulted for approval first. Then we would be faxed a ferry permit along with our typical dispatch release paperwork. I made a specific effort not to rush this procedure due to my lack of familiarity with it. All of the necessary paperwork arrived and I found it all to be in accordance with my briefing from dispatch. Soon after, we departed the airport, only to be asked by company via radio that dispatch had asked us to return to the airport. Once back on the ground, the dispatch supervisor notified me via a landline that we did not depart with a 'required' maintenance signoff from an a&P certifying the aircraft as airworthy for a ferry flight. This requirement was never discussed as I believe (from my impression with talking to the dispatch supervisor) that dispatch totally overlooked this issue. Our company fom gives very little guidance concerning this issue. My company does not hold me responsible for this mistake, however, obvious records will indicate that we departed illegally. Even with concerted efforts on my part to check the situation with caution and patience, a breakdown occurred. I believe CRM -- more basically communication -- would have corrected this problem. In this case, maintenance control was 'looking' for a mechanic to do the signoff, but did not relay this to anyone else (as far as I know) and, furthermore, generated a ferry permit prior to committing to a ferry flight. At our company, maintenance personnel are not required to attend CRM class. I feel that cohesion would be much higher, and unity maintained during a situation such as this, if they were required to attend this class.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SF340 FLC JUST DEPARTED ON FERRY FOR MAINT FLT WHEN COMPANY DISPATCHER NOTIFIED THEM TO RETURN LAND BECAUSE MAINT HAD NOT SIGNED FERRY PERMIT.

Narrative: OUR ACFT DEPARTED DTW FOR LEX ON A REVENUE FLT. ENRTE, THE R FRONT WINDSHIELD HEAT FAILED. WE WERE VMC ALL THE WAY TO LEX AND FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. DISCREPANCY WAS LOGGED IN LEX AND MAINT CTL WAS NOTIFIED. AFTER REVIEWING OPTIONS (IE, DEFERRAL, FIX IT, OR FERRY ACFT) MAINT CTL DECIDED TO CONDUCT A FERRY FLT. DUE TO MY INEXPERIENCE WITH THIS PROC, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE DISPATCHER FOR THE FLT TO REVIEW ALL STEPS WITH ME TO LEGALLY FERRY THE ACFT. I WAS TOLD THAT AN FAA DESIGNATED MAINT PERSON FROM OUR COMPANY, ALONG WITH A CHIEF PLT WOULD BE CONSULTED FOR APPROVAL FIRST. THEN WE WOULD BE FAXED A FERRY PERMIT ALONG WITH OUR TYPICAL DISPATCH RELEASE PAPERWORK. I MADE A SPECIFIC EFFORT NOT TO RUSH THIS PROC DUE TO MY LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH IT. ALL OF THE NECESSARY PAPERWORK ARRIVED AND I FOUND IT ALL TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY BRIEFING FROM DISPATCH. SOON AFTER, WE DEPARTED THE ARPT, ONLY TO BE ASKED BY COMPANY VIA RADIO THAT DISPATCH HAD ASKED US TO RETURN TO THE ARPT. ONCE BACK ON THE GND, THE DISPATCH SUPVR NOTIFIED ME VIA A LANDLINE THAT WE DID NOT DEPART WITH A 'REQUIRED' MAINT SIGNOFF FROM AN A&P CERTIFYING THE ACFT AS AIRWORTHY FOR A FERRY FLT. THIS REQUIREMENT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED AS I BELIEVE (FROM MY IMPRESSION WITH TALKING TO THE DISPATCH SUPVR) THAT DISPATCH TOTALLY OVERLOOKED THIS ISSUE. OUR COMPANY FOM GIVES VERY LITTLE GUIDANCE CONCERNING THIS ISSUE. MY COMPANY DOES NOT HOLD ME RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MISTAKE, HOWEVER, OBVIOUS RECORDS WILL INDICATE THAT WE DEPARTED ILLEGALLY. EVEN WITH CONCERTED EFFORTS ON MY PART TO CHK THE SIT WITH CAUTION AND PATIENCE, A BREAKDOWN OCCURRED. I BELIEVE CRM -- MORE BASICALLY COM -- WOULD HAVE CORRECTED THIS PROB. IN THIS CASE, MAINT CTL WAS 'LOOKING' FOR A MECH TO DO THE SIGNOFF, BUT DID NOT RELAY THIS TO ANYONE ELSE (AS FAR AS I KNOW) AND, FURTHERMORE, GENERATED A FERRY PERMIT PRIOR TO COMMITTING TO A FERRY FLT. AT OUR COMPANY, MAINT PERSONNEL ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND CRM CLASS. I FEEL THAT COHESION WOULD BE MUCH HIGHER, AND UNITY MAINTAINED DURING A SIT SUCH AS THIS, IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THIS CLASS.

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.