Narrative:

I was ferrying an erj-145 aircraft from ZZZ to ZZZ1 on a ferry permit for damage to aircraft tail; aft of baggage door and engine pylon. The aircraft had a lavatory smoke event and eventually an oil leak was found. This leak prompted an unscheduled engine change at ZZZ. Upon arrival in ZZZ; we were informed that during the engine change; that a forklift removing the engine was too small and somehow caused damage to the aircraft during the process of removal. We had an informal conversation with the mechanics as to what had happened and why we were ferrying the aircraft. The only damage we were made aware of was the external damage to the tail and pylon. There was mention of some damage of the engine housing that would require the engine to be removed once we arrived in ZZZ1; but it was my understanding this was exterior cosmetic work. I and the first officer (first officer) visually inspected the area (which had been marked with numerous markings similar to when a 'fly-by' is performed). The first officer did two separate walk-arounds (one with maintenance personnel present and one after they had left). Neither of us observed any issues other than the damage that was marked. I inspected the logbook which had numerous pages of write-ups and at least two 'entered in error' entries. The airworthiness sign-off was also 13-days prior. To complicate the matter; an MEL had been removed and another added which required a release amendment and verification that the MEL was in fact cleared appropriately (engine 1 bleed valve). I had two conversations with the mechanics at ZZZ to verify that was done properly. I did not read the 'entered in error' entries; I simply verified they were signed by the person [who] entered them. The flight was completed with no irregularities. Upon arrival at ZZZ1; a ZZZ1 maintenance worker (I believe the manager) made the comment 'I'm surprised this airplane made it here.' as we rode to the terminal with this worker; I inquired more why he made this comment. I am still unsure if he meant that he was surprised that the ferry permit was issued; or surprised the engine kept running the entire flight. He asked us if they replaced the fan housing. I told him I assumed that would be part of an engine change. It was then he shared that it was his understanding (I do not know what facts he was basing this on) that the aircraft had 'titanium firewall' damage as well as 'fan housing' damage. This conversation made me concerned that we had ferried an aircraft that had many more problems than the cosmetic fuselage and pylon damage that we had believed and that the ferry permit listed. If this report of additional damage is accurate; I would not have accepted the ferry flight. I should have read the 'entered in error' entries. In good-faith; and the abundance of paperwork; I did not read these entries. I feel that those entries may have alerted me of more aircraft issues and given us a more complete picture of what all had occurred. If the additional interior damage is accurate; maintenance should be referencing embraer's ferry permit guidelines and providing more detailed information to the crews of these ferry flights. Assuming this is accurate information; I feel that my trust in maintenance and their documentation has been lost. I put my trust in the mechanics that signed their name(s) in the corrective action and on the ferry permit. I feel as if my trust was taken advantage of and this is not acceptable. I take responsibility for not being more adamant about gaining more details of what had occurred. However; I felt we had an understanding of the damage that was present on the aircraft and this was consistent with the ferry permit. I trusted that we had not been misled. I also feel that there should be some kind of process for the captain; dispatcher; and for the mechanic issuing the ferry permit could complete together. This could include a recorded narration and timeline of events leading to the issuance of the ferry permit.I feel this would make sure that every safety concern (potential risks; performance/fuel burn alterations; and overall understanding of the state of the aircraft) is taken into account on these non-routine flights. I also think this would allow the issuer of the ferry permit to completely understand the state of the aircraft (as he/she usually has not seen the aircraft) as now I question if the mechanics conveyed all the information to maintenance control. I think better communication between all three of us would have perhaps led us to ask more questions and details to those that did the work.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: After ferrying an ERJ-145 aircraft to a Maintenance Base for fuselage tail damage repair; the Captain was informed more extensive damage had actually occurred to one of the engine's fan section and pylon firewall that were not listed on the Ferry Permit. Lack of full information and safety of flight also rose.

Narrative: I was ferrying an ERJ-145 aircraft from ZZZ to ZZZ1 on a Ferry Permit for damage to aircraft tail; aft of baggage door and engine pylon. The aircraft had a lavatory smoke event and eventually an oil leak was found. This leak prompted an unscheduled engine change at ZZZ. Upon arrival in ZZZ; we were informed that during the engine change; that a forklift removing the engine was too small and somehow caused damage to the aircraft during the process of removal. We had an informal conversation with the mechanics as to what had happened and why we were ferrying the aircraft. The only damage we were made aware of was the external damage to the tail and pylon. There was mention of some damage of the engine housing that would require the engine to be removed once we arrived in ZZZ1; but it was my understanding this was exterior cosmetic work. I and the First Officer (FO) visually inspected the area (which had been marked with numerous markings similar to when a 'fly-by' is performed). The FO did two separate walk-arounds (one with Maintenance personnel present and one after they had left). Neither of us observed any issues other than the damage that was marked. I inspected the Logbook which had numerous pages of write-ups and at least two 'entered in error' entries. The Airworthiness sign-off was also 13-days prior. To complicate the matter; an MEL had been removed and another added which required a Release Amendment and verification that the MEL was in fact cleared appropriately (ENG 1 Bleed Valve). I had two conversations with the mechanics at ZZZ to verify that was done properly. I did not read the 'entered in error' entries; I simply verified they were signed by the person [who] entered them. The flight was completed with no irregularities. Upon arrival at ZZZ1; a ZZZ1 Maintenance worker (I believe the Manager) made the comment 'I'm surprised this airplane made it here.' As we rode to the terminal with this worker; I inquired more why he made this comment. I am still unsure if he meant that he was surprised that the Ferry Permit was issued; or surprised the engine kept running the entire flight. He asked us if they replaced the fan housing. I told him I assumed that would be part of an engine change. It was then he shared that it was his understanding (I do not know what facts he was basing this on) that the aircraft had 'titanium firewall' damage as well as 'Fan housing' damage. This conversation made me concerned that we had ferried an aircraft that had many more problems than the cosmetic fuselage and pylon damage that we had believed and that the Ferry Permit listed. If this report of additional damage is accurate; I would not have accepted the ferry flight. I should have read the 'entered in error' entries. In good-faith; and the abundance of paperwork; I did not read these entries. I feel that those entries may have alerted me of more aircraft issues and given us a more complete picture of what all had occurred. If the additional interior damage is accurate; Maintenance should be referencing Embraer's Ferry Permit Guidelines and providing more detailed information to the crews of these ferry flights. Assuming this is accurate information; I feel that my trust in Maintenance and their documentation has been lost. I put my trust in the mechanics that signed their name(s) in the Corrective Action and on the Ferry Permit. I feel as if my trust was taken advantage of and this is not acceptable. I take responsibility for not being more adamant about gaining more details of what had occurred. However; I felt we had an understanding of the damage that was present on the aircraft and this was consistent with the Ferry Permit. I trusted that we had not been misled. I also feel that there should be some kind of process for the Captain; Dispatcher; and for the Mechanic issuing the Ferry Permit could complete together. This could include a recorded narration and timeline of events leading to the issuance of the Ferry Permit.I feel this would make sure that every safety concern (potential risks; performance/fuel burn alterations; and overall understanding of the state of the aircraft) is taken into account on these non-routine flights. I also think this would allow the issuer of the Ferry Permit to completely understand the state of the aircraft (as he/she usually has not seen the aircraft) as now I question if the mechanics conveyed all the information to Maintenance Control. I think better communication between all three of us would have perhaps led us to ask more questions and details to those that did the work.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.