Narrative:

After departing; during climb through 14;000 ft at 290 KTS (normal speed assigned by ATC) the master warning came on with a 'gear disagree' EICAS warning message. The nose gear EICAS indication also showed a red box. We requested a present position hold to assess a malfunction; which we were given along with a level off at 16;000 ft. We completed the appropriate QRH procedure which called for a landing at the nearest suitable airport. It also indicated the possibility of the nose wheel steering being inoperable after landing. We decided [departure airport] was the nearest suitable airport and notified ATC of our intentions and declared an emergency as a precautionary measure. We then notified our dispatcher via ACARS of our intentions to return. I requested the dispatcher notify our local maintenance station of our intentions to return. The dispatcher's response was 'I have notified maintenance' and we were to call via phone on the ground and nothing more. We then planned for an overweight landing of 49;000 pounds and landed normally with no warnings or cautions present. We taxied to the gate unassisted. Our present position hold was in an area of high density departing traffic and had to be reversed by ATC in order for us to be out of the departure corridor. This increased our workload while completing the QRH procedure.once on the ground; the company a&P mechanic who came to the plane told me he had no knowledge of our intention to return to the airport. He also said he was half way home when he got the phone call from maintenance control. This tells me that my request for local maintenance be notified of our return and our dispatcher's response to the ACARS request went unheeded.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ-200 flight crew reported problem with nose gear. They declared an emergency and returned to departure airport.

Narrative: After departing; during climb through 14;000 FT at 290 KTS (normal speed assigned by ATC) the master warning came on with a 'Gear disagree' EICAS warning message. The nose gear EICAS indication also showed a red box. We requested a present position hold to assess a malfunction; which we were given along with a level off at 16;000 FT. We completed the appropriate QRH procedure which called for a landing at the nearest suitable airport. It also indicated the possibility of the nose wheel steering being inoperable after landing. We decided [departure airport] was the nearest suitable airport and notified ATC of our intentions and declared an emergency as a precautionary measure. We then notified our Dispatcher via ACARS of our intentions to return. I requested the Dispatcher notify our Local Maintenance Station of our intentions to return. The Dispatcher's response was 'I have notified Maintenance' and we were to call via phone on the ground and nothing more. We then planned for an overweight landing of 49;000 LBS and landed normally with no warnings or cautions present. We taxied to the gate unassisted. Our present position hold was in an area of high density departing traffic and had to be reversed by ATC in order for us to be out of the departure corridor. This increased our workload while completing the QRH procedure.Once on the ground; the company A&P mechanic who came to the plane told me he had no knowledge of our intention to return to the airport. He also said he was half way home when he got the phone call from Maintenance Control. This tells me that my request for Local Maintenance be notified of our return and our Dispatcher's response to the ACARS request went unheeded.

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.