Narrative:

On arrival to clt we had a failure of #1 hydraulic system. This left us with unrestricted use of flight controls and alternate gear and flap extensions. The crew seemed to work well. All procedures were complied with. Flight attendants did nice job preparing the cabin. Landing was uneventful. We were able to stop on centerline without the nose wheel steering being available. We also determined that we could clear the runway using differential braking, which we did successfully, followed by a tow to the gate. The only question that may occur was our choice to continue to clt. My feeling at the time was that, although it may not have been the closest airport, we were already established on the SID and our thought process was well underway to a landing in clt. In addition, from our altitude (approximately 29000 ft) a closer airport would have required either a rapid descent or delaying turns, plus additional workload. In some past incidents this type of thinking has been recognized as valid. Hopefully the addition of cockpit resource management may shed more light on this for crews and regulations as well.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG ACFT LOST #1 HYD SYS. STILL HAD FLT CTLS. HAD ALTERNATE EXTENSION FOR GEAR. NO NOSE WHEEL STEERING. HAD BRAKING. NORMAL LNDG AFTER EMER PREPARATION AND TURNED OFF RWY. TOWED TO GATE.

Narrative: ON ARR TO CLT WE HAD A FAILURE OF #1 HYD SYS. THIS LEFT US WITH UNRESTRICTED USE OF FLT CTLS AND ALTERNATE GEAR AND FLAP EXTENSIONS. THE CREW SEEMED TO WORK WELL. ALL PROCS WERE COMPLIED WITH. FLT ATTENDANTS DID NICE JOB PREPARING THE CABIN. LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. WE WERE ABLE TO STOP ON CENTERLINE WITHOUT THE NOSE WHEEL STEERING BEING AVAILABLE. WE ALSO DETERMINED THAT WE COULD CLR THE RWY USING DIFFERENTIAL BRAKING, WHICH WE DID SUCCESSFULLY, FOLLOWED BY A TOW TO THE GATE. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT MAY OCCUR WAS OUR CHOICE TO CONTINUE TO CLT. MY FEELING AT THE TIME WAS THAT, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE CLOSEST ARPT, WE WERE ALREADY ESTABLISHED ON THE SID AND OUR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS WELL UNDERWAY TO A LNDG IN CLT. IN ADDITION, FROM OUR ALT (APPROX 29000 FT) A CLOSER ARPT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED EITHER A RAPID DSCNT OR DELAYING TURNS, PLUS ADDITIONAL WORKLOAD. IN SOME PAST INCIDENTS THIS TYPE OF THINKING HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS VALID. HOPEFULLY THE ADDITION OF COCKPIT RESOURCE MGMNT MAY SHED MORE LIGHT ON THIS FOR CREWS AND REGS AS WELL.

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.