Narrative:

I took off at ZZZ international and the nose gear would not completely retract. After determining that the gear safely extended, I returned to land and call my company. I called company and explained the problem. The maintenance personnel advised me to fly the airplane back to our home base to be worked on. They stated that since the flight would be conducted under part 91, that a ferry permit was not necessary. Based on the airplane and the conditions and short distance (1 hour), I felt that I could safely bring the plane home as they requested. Upon arrival at our base, I was asked by my chief pilot why I did not comply with the MEL and his opinion was that I needed a ferry permit (although he was not completely certain). In fact, crash fire rescue equipment 91.213 does state that a part 135 operator utilizing an MEL must also comply with that even while conducting operations under part 91 rules. Our MEL has no provision for flying the airplane with landing gear that will not retract. This is something that my company personnel either did not know or just did not take seriously. Nevertheless, as PIC, I was not aware of this either. Because I believed that the airplane was safe to fly, and considering other factors, I made the decision to fly the airplane. It did not occur to me that I might be in violation of crash fire rescue equipment 91.213 by repositioning the airplane back to base with a condition that was not covered in our MEL. Until researching afterwards, I did not realize adequately the implication of that specific crash fire rescue equipment or else I would have questioned the directive of maintenance. Even at this moment, I am still not completely sure that I needed a ferry permit. This area or our operations needs to be better understood by myself in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CE402C WAS FLOWN IN NON COMPLIANCE TO A REPAIR STATION WITH A NOSE GEAR THAT WOULD NOT RETRACT. OPERATED WITH NO FERRY PERMIT AND NO INSPECTION.

Narrative: I TOOK OFF AT ZZZ INTL AND THE NOSE GEAR WOULD NOT COMPLETELY RETRACT. AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE GEAR SAFELY EXTENDED, I RETURNED TO LAND AND CALL MY COMPANY. I CALLED COMPANY AND EXPLAINED THE PROB. THE MAINT PERSONNEL ADVISED ME TO FLY THE AIRPLANE BACK TO OUR HOME BASE TO BE WORKED ON. THEY STATED THAT SINCE THE FLT WOULD BE CONDUCTED UNDER PART 91, THAT A FERRY PERMIT WAS NOT NECESSARY. BASED ON THE AIRPLANE AND THE CONDITIONS AND SHORT DISTANCE (1 HR), I FELT THAT I COULD SAFELY BRING THE PLANE HOME AS THEY REQUESTED. UPON ARR AT OUR BASE, I WAS ASKED BY MY CHIEF PLT WHY I DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MEL AND HIS OPINION WAS THAT I NEEDED A FERRY PERMIT (ALTHOUGH HE WAS NOT COMPLETELY CERTAIN). IN FACT, CFR 91.213 DOES STATE THAT A PART 135 OPERATOR UTILIZING AN MEL MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THAT EVEN WHILE CONDUCTING OPS UNDER PART 91 RULES. OUR MEL HAS NO PROVISION FOR FLYING THE AIRPLANE WITH LNDG GEAR THAT WILL NOT RETRACT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MY COMPANY PERSONNEL EITHER DID NOT KNOW OR JUST DID NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY. NEVERTHELESS, AS PIC, I WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS EITHER. BECAUSE I BELIEVED THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS SAFE TO FLY, AND CONSIDERING OTHER FACTORS, I MADE THE DECISION TO FLY THE AIRPLANE. IT DID NOT OCCUR TO ME THAT I MIGHT BE IN VIOLATION OF CFR 91.213 BY REPOSITIONING THE AIRPLANE BACK TO BASE WITH A CONDITION THAT WAS NOT COVERED IN OUR MEL. UNTIL RESEARCHING AFTERWARDS, I DID NOT REALIZE ADEQUATELY THE IMPLICATION OF THAT SPECIFIC CFR OR ELSE I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONED THE DIRECTIVE OF MAINT. EVEN AT THIS MOMENT, I AM STILL NOT COMPLETELY SURE THAT I NEEDED A FERRY PERMIT. THIS AREA OR OUR OPS NEEDS TO BE BETTER UNDERSTOOD BY MYSELF 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.