Narrative:

Upon entering traffic pattern at ile, I requested 'flaps 25%.' first officer selected flaps 25 %, but flaps failed to extend. I elected to depart the pattern and climb to a safe altitude while we attempted to correct the problem (reset circuit breaker's, etc). Reestablished communication with gray approach and informed them of problem and desired course and altitude. Unable to correct the flap problem, and have insufficient fuel to return to the departure point with legal reserves, my options were to divert to a company station at waco, tx (about 20 mins away), thereby stranding my passenger at an airport other than their destination, or make a 0% flap landing at ile. Runway 01/19 at ile is 5000' in length with a 1000' displaced threshold on runway 01. Mindful that our company operations are weight and flap limited on runway 01, I tried to determine if 0% flap would be legal using runway 19 (the winds were calm). After approximately 5 mins of searching through the afm, poh and runway analysis folder while monitoring the first officer fly the aircraft, keeping 1 eye out for traffic and attempting to contact the ile company station on company frequency, I was unable to find conclusive evidence that flaps 0% was not authority/authorized. Also mindful of the chief pilot's potential criticism for diverting a flight if, in fact, 0% flap was legal for runway 19, I elected to land. The approach was briefed for 0% flaps and executed successfully on runway 19 with approximately 1000' to spare. While the flap motor was being repaired at ile, we had ample time to peruse the operations specifications and find that a 0% flap landing at ile was not authority/authorized on either runway. Contributing factors: 4 manuals to search through trying to find pertinent data, memory lapse possible caused by fatigue (scheduled reduced rest of 8 hours the prior night), and fear of reprimand for erring on the safe side.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER SMT 0 FLAP LNDG ON A RWY NOT AUTH FOR 0 FLAP LNDGS.

Narrative: UPON ENTERING TFC PATTERN AT ILE, I REQUESTED 'FLAPS 25%.' F/O SELECTED FLAPS 25 %, BUT FLAPS FAILED TO EXTEND. I ELECTED TO DEPART THE PATTERN AND CLB TO A SAFE ALT WHILE WE ATTEMPTED TO CORRECT THE PROB (RESET CB'S, ETC). REESTABLISHED COM WITH GRAY APCH AND INFORMED THEM OF PROB AND DESIRED COURSE AND ALT. UNABLE TO CORRECT THE FLAP PROB, AND HAVE INSUFFICIENT FUEL TO RETURN TO THE DEP POINT WITH LEGAL RESERVES, MY OPTIONS WERE TO DIVERT TO A COMPANY STATION AT WACO, TX (ABOUT 20 MINS AWAY), THEREBY STRANDING MY PAX AT AN ARPT OTHER THAN THEIR DEST, OR MAKE A 0% FLAP LNDG AT ILE. RWY 01/19 AT ILE IS 5000' IN LENGTH WITH A 1000' DISPLACED THRESHOLD ON RWY 01. MINDFUL THAT OUR COMPANY OPS ARE WT AND FLAP LIMITED ON RWY 01, I TRIED TO DETERMINE IF 0% FLAP WOULD BE LEGAL USING RWY 19 (THE WINDS WERE CALM). AFTER APPROX 5 MINS OF SEARCHING THROUGH THE AFM, POH AND RWY ANALYSIS FOLDER WHILE MONITORING THE F/O FLY THE ACFT, KEEPING 1 EYE OUT FOR TFC AND ATTEMPTING TO CONTACT THE ILE COMPANY STATION ON COMPANY FREQ, I WAS UNABLE TO FIND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT FLAPS 0% WAS NOT AUTH. ALSO MINDFUL OF THE CHIEF PLT'S POTENTIAL CRITICISM FOR DIVERTING A FLT IF, IN FACT, 0% FLAP WAS LEGAL FOR RWY 19, I ELECTED TO LAND. THE APCH WAS BRIEFED FOR 0% FLAPS AND EXECUTED SUCCESSFULLY ON RWY 19 WITH APPROX 1000' TO SPARE. WHILE THE FLAP MOTOR WAS BEING REPAIRED AT ILE, WE HAD AMPLE TIME TO PERUSE THE OPS SPECS AND FIND THAT A 0% FLAP LNDG AT ILE WAS NOT AUTH ON EITHER RWY. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 4 MANUALS TO SEARCH THROUGH TRYING TO FIND PERTINENT DATA, MEMORY LAPSE POSSIBLE CAUSED BY FATIGUE (SCHEDULED REDUCED REST OF 8 HRS THE PRIOR NIGHT), AND FEAR OF REPRIMAND FOR ERRING ON THE SAFE SIDE.

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.