AN A300-600 FLC PONDERS THE LEGALITY OF THEIR FERRY FLT WITH THE YAW DAMPER INOP AS WELL AS THE STATUS OF THE ACFT WITH NON COMPUTER GENERATED PAPERWORK ADDRESSING THE AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS OF THEIR ACFT OUT OF CLE; OH.

Narrative

CONCERN: WERE WE LEGAL AS A LINE CREW TO ACCEPT A DISPATCHED AIRPLANE WITH A FERRY PERMIT WITHOUT SPECIAL CREW QUALIFICATIONS? THE COPLT AND I ARE LINE PLTS. AIRLINE OPS CTL CTR RECALLED US FROM CREW REST TO OPERATE FERRY FLT FROM CLE. THE ACFT HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP FOR UNSTABLE OSCILLATIONS DURING CRUISE WHICH CEASED BY DISCONNECTING BOTH YAW DAMPERS. REPAIRS WERE MADE; HOWEVER; THE PROB CONTINUED TO OCCUR. THE ACFT WAS AGAIN WRITTEN UP COMING INTO CLE AND AS A RESULT; AIRLINE ELECTED TO TAKE THE ACFT (A300-600) OUT OF REVENUE SVC AND FERRY IT TO THE COMPANY HOME BASE IN LIEU OF REPAIRING IT AT CLE. THE CREW WAS PRESENTED WITH THE ACFT LOGBOOK; MAINT HISTORY; AND A FERRY PERMIT. I WAS EXTENSIVELY BRIEFED BY THE PREVIOUS CAPT ON THE UNUSUAL FLT CHARACTERISTICS. THE LOGBOOK PAPERWORK INCLUDED AN ARD (COMPUTERIZED MAINT TRACKING AND HISTORY PRINTOUT WITH MAINT AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE) THAT HAD BEEN VALID FOR THE PREVIOUS FLT; THOUGH EXPIRED FOR OUR FLT. ATTACHED WAS THE HANDWRITTEN WRITE-UP THAT HAD NOT BEEN CLRED; DESCRIBING THE UNUSUAL FLT CHARACTERISTICS. ADDITIONALLY; A SECOND HANDWRITTEN WRITE-UP WAS ATTACHED WITH A MECH'S AIRWORTHINESS AUTH TO RELEASE THE ACFT FOR A FERRY FLT BACK TO HOME BASE. A NEW ARD WAS ATTACHED; BUT COULD NOT BE COMPLETED BECAUSE THE ACFT HAD AN OPEN WRITE-UP (DUE TO THE COMPUTER SAFETY LIMITATIONS WITH WORK IN PROGRESS). THE MECH TOLD US THAT HIS HANDWRITTEN AUTH WITH THE FERRY PERMIT CONSTITUTED AN AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION. OPS CTL CTR THEN RELEASED THE ACFT FOR THIS 1 LEG FLT. AFTER REVIEWING ALL OF THE AVAILABLE DOCUMENTATION; WE BELIEVED THAT WE WERE LEGAL TO MAKE THE FLT. DURING TKOF; CLB AND INITIAL CRUISE; I HAND FLEW THE AIRPLANE. THE ACFT WAS TRIMMED AT CRUISE AND WAS QUITE STABLE. AFTER APPROX 10 MINS OF CRUISE; I ELECTED TO ENGAGE ONE OF THE AUTOPLTS AND NO PROBS OCCURRED. THE CRUISE ALT WAS AT THE 'NO YAW DAMPER' CEILING; WHICH IS BELOW THE ALT THE PREVIOUS CREW HAD ENCOUNTERED THEIR UNUSUAL FLT CHARACTERISTICS. I ELECTED TO DSND THE ACFT AT 290 KTS (INSTEAD OF 325 KTS). I ELECTED TO DISCONNECT THE AUTOPLT FOR THE APCH AND LNDG. THE ENTIRE FLT WAS UNEVENTFUL. I AM NOW CONCERNED THAT A LINE CREW IS NOT TRAINED OR QUALIFIED TO CONDUCT FERRY FLTS FOR ACFT THAT HAVE MECHANICAL DEFECTS NOT COVERED BY THE ACFT'S MEL OR CDL. I HAD ALWAYS SEEN MGMNT AND/OR FLT TEST PLTS CONDUCT FERRY FLTS. I BELIEVE THAT THE COMPANY OPS MANUAL SHOULD CONTAIN DETAILED INFO RELIEVING THE CREW OF MAKING A JUDGEMENT DECISION AS TO LEGALITY. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 496236: I AM CONCERNED THAT WE WERE NOT LEGAL TO CONDUCT THIS FLT. THIS FLT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLOWN BY A MGMNT OR COMPANY FLT TEST PLT. WE SHOULD HAVE CALLED OUR MAINT CTL CTR OR CHIEF PLT PRIOR TO OPERATING THIS FLT.