Narrative:

While on visual approach when selecting flaps 20 we observed the flaps fail cas message. The flaps stopped at 20 degrees with no asymmetry. First officer was PF. I notified approach and asked for a vector and a climb to 5000 ft. I ran the QRH and once that was complete we notified approach of the situation and declared the emergency. We were vectored for a 10 mile final. I took over PF duties prior to turning inbound towards the airport. We flew the approach on autopilot down to 500 ft. I then landed normally with first officer calling out the sink rate when the aircraft was below 100 ft. The touchdown was at less than 100 FPM sink. No significant problems with the landing. The aircraft was on a ferry flight to the maintenance facility for a flap problem. However the problem that the aircraft had before was only on the ground and during retraction. When there is a flap problem it would be nice to allow for more troubleshooting at the aircraft's location prior to conducting a ferry flight to deliver it to the maintenance facility.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated that on three flts previous to this the aircraft's flaps would not retract from the 45 degree landing position until the flap control circuit breaker was reset on the ground. After the third event; the reporter was assigned to ferry the aircraft to a maintenance base and had this failure occur. When the aircraft arrived at the hangar; maintenance looked at the computer codes and found a flap asymmetry code indicated as the cause of the flap fault. The reporter and maintenance walked around the aircraft and could not visually detect a difference between the flaps. Can only guess as maintenance did; that the fault was caused by a proximity sensor. The reporter stated that 'there have been a rash of these.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ200 FLAPS FAILED AT 20 DURING FLAP SELECTION FOR LNDG. A GAR WAS EXECUTED AND AN EMER DECLARED. AFTER THE QRH WAS CONSULTED A NORMAL LNDG FOLLOWED.

Narrative: WHILE ON VISUAL APCH WHEN SELECTING FLAPS 20 WE OBSERVED THE FLAPS FAIL CAS MESSAGE. THE FLAPS STOPPED AT 20 DEGS WITH NO ASYMMETRY. FO WAS PF. I NOTIFIED APCH AND ASKED FOR A VECTOR AND A CLIMB TO 5000 FT. I RAN THE QRH AND ONCE THAT WAS COMPLETE WE NOTIFIED APCH OF THE SITUATION AND DECLARED THE EMER. WE WERE VECTORED FOR A 10 MILE FINAL. I TOOK OVER PF DUTIES PRIOR TO TURNING INBOUND TOWARDS THE ARPT. WE FLEW THE APCH ON AUTOPILOT DOWN TO 500 FT. I THEN LANDED NORMALLY WITH FO CALLING OUT THE SINK RATE WHEN THE ACFT WAS BELOW 100 FT. THE TOUCHDOWN WAS AT LESS THAN 100 FPM SINK. NO SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE LNDG. THE ACFT WAS ON A FERRY FLT TO THE MAINT FACILITY FOR A FLAP PROBLEM. HOWEVER THE PROBLEM THAT THE ACFT HAD BEFORE WAS ONLY ON THE GND AND DURING RETRACTION. WHEN THERE IS A FLAP PROBLEM IT WOULD BE NICE TO ALLOW FOR MORE TROUBLESHOOTING AT THE ACFT'S LOCATION PRIOR TO CONDUCTING A FERRY FLT TO DELIVER IT TO THE MAINT FACILITY.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THAT ON THREE FLTS PREVIOUS TO THIS THE ACFT'S FLAPS WOULD NOT RETRACT FROM THE 45 DEG LNDG POSITION UNTIL THE FLAP CONTROL CIRCUIT BREAKER WAS RESET ON THE GND. AFTER THE THIRD EVENT; THE RPTR WAS ASSIGNED TO FERRY THE ACFT TO A MAINT BASE AND HAD THIS FAILURE OCCUR. WHEN THE ACFT ARRIVED AT THE HANGAR; MAINT LOOKED AT THE COMPUTER CODES AND FOUND A FLAP ASYMMETRY CODE INDICATED AS THE CAUSE OF THE FLAP FAULT. THE RPTR AND MAINT WALKED AROUND THE ACFT AND COULD NOT VISUALLY DETECT A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FLAPS. CAN ONLY GUESS AS MAINT DID; THAT THE FAULT WAS CAUSED BY A PROXIMITY SENSOR. THE RPTR STATED THAT 'THERE HAVE BEEN A RASH OF THESE.'

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.