Narrative:

We took off out of ZZZ. Winds were very gusty which increased PF workload. Upon reaching 600 ft AGL; the generator #2 amber cas message appeared. Immediately the PF took the controls and radios while the pilot monitoring ran the QRH for amber generator #2 message. The QRH directed us to reset the affected generator; to which the pilot monitoring accidentally and momentarily reset the wrong switch causing the air driven generator to deploy. Power was immediately returned back to the aircraft and taken off the air driven generator. At this point the air driven generator was already deployed; so we returned back to ZZZ and landed. The crew immediately determined the event occurred and did everything right after the fact to quickly and safely return to the airport. Not only was operations and maintenance notified quickly; but the crew was able to make an announcement to the passenger informing them of the situation. The PF continued flying and operating the radios while the pilot monitoring set up communications with the flight attendants; maintenance; operations; and the passenger. The rest of the flight was non-eventful. Although an error in the crew action created the problem; they handled the outcome(south) very well and in a professional manner. Safety of the crew and passenger was never an issue so; therefore; this is a perfect example of a successful failure. I feel this event occurred due to the high workload environment created by the adverse WX conditions. The PF was busy flying the aircraft through the gusty winds while the pilot monitoring was attempting to run the QRH in rough conditions. This could have been added to the problem of the pilot monitoring initially flipping the wrong switch. Accidents happen and no one is perfect. That being said; one thing that could have helped the situation would have been if the APU had still been running for takeoff. In the 200; it is common to leave it on until the after takeoff checks are complete. Therefore; the same situation; in the 200; would have been a non-event since the APU would have immediately taken all electrical loads. If this were a commonality with the 700; this would have also been a non-event. Reporter has been in contact with his air carrier and the cause of the failures has yet to be determined. The reporter did not know if the aircraft was put back into service.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING TKOF IN GUSTY CONDITIONS A CRJ700'S #2 GEN FAULT OCCURRED. THE #1 GEN WAS RESET CAUSING THE LOSS OF ALL ELEC AND FORCING THE AIR DRIVEN GEN ON.

Narrative: WE TOOK OFF OUT OF ZZZ. WINDS WERE VERY GUSTY WHICH INCREASED PF WORKLOAD. UPON REACHING 600 FT AGL; THE GENERATOR #2 AMBER CAS MESSAGE APPEARED. IMMEDIATELY THE PF TOOK THE CTLS AND RADIOS WHILE THE PLT MONITORING RAN THE QRH FOR AMBER GENERATOR #2 MESSAGE. THE QRH DIRECTED US TO RESET THE AFFECTED GENERATOR; TO WHICH THE PLT MONITORING ACCIDENTALLY AND MOMENTARILY RESET THE WRONG SWITCH CAUSING THE ADG TO DEPLOY. PWR WAS IMMEDIATELY RETURNED BACK TO THE ACFT AND TAKEN OFF THE ADG. AT THIS POINT THE ADG WAS ALREADY DEPLOYED; SO WE RETURNED BACK TO ZZZ AND LANDED. THE CREW IMMEDIATELY DETERMINED THE EVENT OCCURRED AND DID EVERYTHING RIGHT AFTER THE FACT TO QUICKLY AND SAFELY RETURN TO THE ARPT. NOT ONLY WAS OPS AND MAINT NOTIFIED QUICKLY; BUT THE CREW WAS ABLE TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE PAX INFORMING THEM OF THE SITUATION. THE PF CONTINUED FLYING AND OPERATING THE RADIOS WHILE THE PLT MONITORING SET UP COMS WITH THE FLT ATTENDANTS; MAINT; OPS; AND THE PAX. THE REST OF THE FLT WAS NON-EVENTFUL. ALTHOUGH AN ERROR IN THE CREW ACTION CREATED THE PROB; THEY HANDLED THE OUTCOME(S) VERY WELL AND IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER. SAFETY OF THE CREW AND PAX WAS NEVER AN ISSUE SO; THEREFORE; THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A SUCCESSFUL FAILURE. I FEEL THIS EVENT OCCURRED DUE TO THE HIGH WORKLOAD ENVIRONMENT CREATED BY THE ADVERSE WX CONDITIONS. THE PF WAS BUSY FLYING THE ACFT THROUGH THE GUSTY WINDS WHILE THE PLT MONITORING WAS ATTEMPTING TO RUN THE QRH IN ROUGH CONDITIONS. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE PROB OF THE PLT MONITORING INITIALLY FLIPPING THE WRONG SWITCH. ACCIDENTS HAPPEN AND NO ONE IS PERFECT. THAT BEING SAID; ONE THING THAT COULD HAVE HELPED THE SITUATION WOULD HAVE BEEN IF THE APU HAD STILL BEEN RUNNING FOR TKOF. IN THE 200; IT IS COMMON TO LEAVE IT ON UNTIL THE AFTER TKOF CHKS ARE COMPLETE. THEREFORE; THE SAME SITUATION; IN THE 200; WOULD HAVE BEEN A NON-EVENT SINCE THE APU WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY TAKEN ALL ELECTRICAL LOADS. IF THIS WERE A COMMONALITY WITH THE 700; THIS WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN A NON-EVENT. REPORTER HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH HIS ACR AND THE CAUSE OF THE FAILURES HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED. THE REPORTER DID NOT KNOW IF THE ACFT WAS PUT BACK INTO SERVICE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.