Narrative:

Upon arrival at the aircraft for an einn-jfk ferry, we were informed that our plane was going to kwi and we would wait for the inbound aircraft to ferry it to atl for maintenance. The ongoing engine vibrations, in particular the right engine on descent, had finally gotten bad enough to fix. I asked if contract maintenance should fix it, instead of flying it 9+ hours to atl. Maintenance said that they would look at it, and then we would ferry it. We did receive a normal dispatch packet, including a 120 mins ETOPS flight plan. However, when the captain called dispatch to add the ferry permit to the release, we were told that it was a part 91 flight, and we didn't need a release. We flew across the atlantic with an open write-up and no ETOPS sign-off. I'm not certain that this was legal. If the plane is being maintained to part 121 requirements, shouldn't we always maintain 121 standards? Air carrier does a lot of nonsense under 'the flight is part 91' banner, tail-end ferries, flying well past flight/duty limits. That loophole needs to be closed in the regulations, part 121 should be part 121 all the time. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that a part 91 ferry permit was placed in the logbook, but the ferry inspection and signoff information was not entered, nor was an ETOPS inspection signoff entered. Reporter stated that the crew was also told to 'throw away the dispatch release' as it would not be needed for a part 91 ferry flight.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B767-300 FLT CREW COMPLETES A TRANSATLANTIC FLT WITHOUT PROPER ETOPS RELEASE AND FAR PART 91 FERRY DOCUMENTATION.

Narrative: UPON ARR AT THE ACFT FOR AN EINN-JFK FERRY, WE WERE INFORMED THAT OUR PLANE WAS GOING TO KWI AND WE WOULD WAIT FOR THE INBOUND ACFT TO FERRY IT TO ATL FOR MAINT. THE ONGOING ENG VIBRATIONS, IN PARTICULAR THE R ENG ON DSCNT, HAD FINALLY GOTTEN BAD ENOUGH TO FIX. I ASKED IF CONTRACT MAINT SHOULD FIX IT, INSTEAD OF FLYING IT 9+ HRS TO ATL. MAINT SAID THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT IT, AND THEN WE WOULD FERRY IT. WE DID RECEIVE A NORMAL DISPATCH PACKET, INCLUDING A 120 MINS ETOPS FLT PLAN. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CAPT CALLED DISPATCH TO ADD THE FERRY PERMIT TO THE RELEASE, WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS A PART 91 FLT, AND WE DIDN'T NEED A RELEASE. WE FLEW ACROSS THE ATLANTIC WITH AN OPEN WRITE-UP AND NO ETOPS SIGN-OFF. I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THIS WAS LEGAL. IF THE PLANE IS BEING MAINTAINED TO PART 121 REQUIREMENTS, SHOULDN'T WE ALWAYS MAINTAIN 121 STANDARDS? ACR DOES A LOT OF NONSENSE UNDER 'THE FLT IS PART 91' BANNER, TAIL-END FERRIES, FLYING WELL PAST FLT/DUTY LIMITS. THAT LOOPHOLE NEEDS TO BE CLOSED IN THE REGS, PART 121 SHOULD BE PART 121 ALL THE TIME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT A PART 91 FERRY PERMIT WAS PLACED IN THE LOGBOOK, BUT THE FERRY INSPECTION AND SIGNOFF INFO WAS NOT ENTERED, NOR WAS AN ETOPS INSPECTION SIGNOFF ENTERED. RPTR STATED THAT THE CREW WAS ALSO TOLD TO 'THROW AWAY THE DISPATCH RELEASE' AS IT WOULD NOT BE NEEDED FOR A PART 91 FERRY FLT.

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.