 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Airbus captain reported using system 2; even though it was deferred; to retract the landing gear when it failed to retract using system 1.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1600640 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201812 |
| Local Time Of Day | 0601-1200 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | IND.Airport |
| State Reference | IN |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Takeoff |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Landing Gear |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Captain Pilot Flying |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP) Flight Crew Multiengine Flight Crew Instrument |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural MEL Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
After takeoff; the gear would not retract. I then selected system 2 and gear retracted normally. However; system 2 was deferred. We continued flight to destination and submitted aml for system 1.in hindsight; I've considered my action to use system 2 was wrong because of the deferral. During preflight and review of the aircraft release /aml; it was apparent that this was an ongoing maintenance issue. A recent flight had the same problem on takeoff and elected to use other system also; so in my mind; there was uncertainty on what was the problem between system 1 and 2. Additionally; there was not any history of landing gear extension issues; so at the time and in heat of the moment; I believed I was taking the safest course of action. Weather (snow and ice) was a consideration. I didn't want to leave the gear hanging if ice was present.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Airbus Captain reported using System 2; even though it was deferred; to retract the landing gear when it failed to retract using System 1.
Narrative: After takeoff; the gear would not retract. I then selected SYS 2 and gear retracted normally. However; SYS 2 was deferred. We continued flight to destination and submitted AML for system 1.In hindsight; I've considered my action to use system 2 was wrong because of the deferral. During preflight and review of the Aircraft Release /AML; it was apparent that this was an ongoing maintenance issue. A recent flight had the same problem on takeoff and elected to use other system also; So in my mind; there was uncertainty on what was the problem between system 1 and 2. Additionally; there was not any history of landing gear extension issues; so at the time and in heat of the moment; I believed I was taking the safest course of action. Weather (snow and ice) was a consideration. I didn't want to leave the gear hanging if ice was present.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.