Narrative:

Upon arrival for work, I was advised that aircraft X was scheduled for an early evening ferry flight to ZZZ1 for repair of an aft bulkhead crack. This was to be the basis for the ferry flight. A second deferral for repair of the aft lavatory also existed from creating access to the aft bulkhead and would also require repair when the aft bulkhead work was complete. A technician's non routine write-up also existed for a noise in the nose landing gear and had been idented by day shift at XA30 to be from the actuator. A mechanic was assigned to change the actuator and events progressed until it was determined that the upper attach fitting bearing would require replacement. A discrepancy was generated on a technician's non routine write-up and turned over to the machine shop for replacement. After research by the machine shop for this project, the work was started around XH00 but eventually tied in to another shift for completion and I believe the ferry flight was rescheduled. I had contacted maintenance controller earlier while still expecting a ferry flight and created maintenance carryover tasks deferrals to the aft bulkhead and the aft lavatory since that was the extent of the deferrals I was expecting for the ferry flight. I entered the log pages and left them in the logbook. This was done to consolidate the work package and narrow the scope down to the ferry permit technician's non routine write-up, which I also generated and left open. I had a full copy of the gpm procedures for ferry flts out on the work table and since the verbiage for the release was specific, I wrote that into the initial report correction portion of the technician's non routine write-up, but left the signature open awaiting completion of the whole package as well as the items on the ferry permit. I had a facsimile of a ferry permit which I placed in the logbook. I tied this into the shift lead assigned to the plane and left for the night. The decision to ferry the plane with the gear problem deferred had not been made nor discussed before I had clocked out and gone home. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the paperwork was all done except for the nose gear upper attach fitting bearing. The reporter said the ferry permit was issued and was with the paperwork package. The reporter stated when the nose gear work was completed on the next shift the airplane was dispatched on the maintenance ferry with the landing gear extended. The reporter said the ferry permit issued did not contain the fact the nose gear was extended.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727-200 WAS MAINT FERRIED TO A CONTRACT MAINT FACILITY, PRIOR TO WORK BEING DONE ON THE NOSE LNDG GEAR. FERRY PERMIT ISSUED ON BASIS OF LNDG GEAR BEING REPAIRED.

Narrative: UPON ARR FOR WORK, I WAS ADVISED THAT ACFT X WAS SCHEDULED FOR AN EARLY EVENING FERRY FLT TO ZZZ1 FOR REPAIR OF AN AFT BULKHEAD CRACK. THIS WAS TO BE THE BASIS FOR THE FERRY FLT. A SECOND DEFERRAL FOR REPAIR OF THE AFT LAVATORY ALSO EXISTED FROM CREATING ACCESS TO THE AFT BULKHEAD AND WOULD ALSO REQUIRE REPAIR WHEN THE AFT BULKHEAD WORK WAS COMPLETE. A TECHNICIAN'S NON ROUTINE WRITE-UP ALSO EXISTED FOR A NOISE IN THE NOSE LNDG GEAR AND HAD BEEN IDENTED BY DAY SHIFT AT XA30 TO BE FROM THE ACTUATOR. A MECH WAS ASSIGNED TO CHANGE THE ACTUATOR AND EVENTS PROGRESSED UNTIL IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE UPPER ATTACH FITTING BEARING WOULD REQUIRE REPLACEMENT. A DISCREPANCY WAS GENERATED ON A TECHNICIAN'S NON ROUTINE WRITE-UP AND TURNED OVER TO THE MACHINE SHOP FOR REPLACEMENT. AFTER RESEARCH BY THE MACHINE SHOP FOR THIS PROJECT, THE WORK WAS STARTED AROUND XH00 BUT EVENTUALLY TIED IN TO ANOTHER SHIFT FOR COMPLETION AND I BELIEVE THE FERRY FLT WAS RESCHEDULED. I HAD CONTACTED MAINT CTLR EARLIER WHILE STILL EXPECTING A FERRY FLT AND CREATED MAINT CARRYOVER TASKS DEFERRALS TO THE AFT BULKHEAD AND THE AFT LAVATORY SINCE THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF THE DEFERRALS I WAS EXPECTING FOR THE FERRY FLT. I ENTERED THE LOG PAGES AND LEFT THEM IN THE LOGBOOK. THIS WAS DONE TO CONSOLIDATE THE WORK PACKAGE AND NARROW THE SCOPE DOWN TO THE FERRY PERMIT TECHNICIAN'S NON ROUTINE WRITE-UP, WHICH I ALSO GENERATED AND LEFT OPEN. I HAD A FULL COPY OF THE GPM PROCS FOR FERRY FLTS OUT ON THE WORK TABLE AND SINCE THE VERBIAGE FOR THE RELEASE WAS SPECIFIC, I WROTE THAT INTO THE INITIAL RPT CORRECTION PORTION OF THE TECHNICIAN'S NON ROUTINE WRITE-UP, BUT LEFT THE SIGNATURE OPEN AWAITING COMPLETION OF THE WHOLE PACKAGE AS WELL AS THE ITEMS ON THE FERRY PERMIT. I HAD A FAX OF A FERRY PERMIT WHICH I PLACED IN THE LOGBOOK. I TIED THIS INTO THE SHIFT LEAD ASSIGNED TO THE PLANE AND LEFT FOR THE NIGHT. THE DECISION TO FERRY THE PLANE WITH THE GEAR PROB DEFERRED HAD NOT BEEN MADE NOR DISCUSSED BEFORE I HAD CLOCKED OUT AND GONE HOME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE PAPERWORK WAS ALL DONE EXCEPT FOR THE NOSE GEAR UPPER ATTACH FITTING BEARING. THE RPTR SAID THE FERRY PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND WAS WITH THE PAPERWORK PACKAGE. THE RPTR STATED WHEN THE NOSE GEAR WORK WAS COMPLETED ON THE NEXT SHIFT THE AIRPLANE WAS DISPATCHED ON THE MAINT FERRY WITH THE LNDG GEAR EXTENDED. THE RPTR SAID THE FERRY PERMIT ISSUED DID NOT CONTAIN THE FACT THE NOSE GEAR WAS EXTENDED.

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.