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.