Narrative:

When configuring for a visual approach at avl we received a 'flaps fail' amber message when selecting flaps from 8 to 20. (IAS was approximately 180 KIAS). We asked tower to give us holding instructions. We entered the holding pattern and ran the flaps fail QRH. We determined that 8;000 ft was plenty of runway for the conditions; so we elected to land at our destination and to not declare an emergency. This was a 'no-alternate' fuel plan and we felt that returning to our departure airport while the flaps were stuck at 17 would burn significantly more fuel.once at the gate; maintenance was able to talk us through resetting the flap indicator system in accordance with guidance found in the appropriate MEL chapter. The outbound flight was slightly delayed; but able to its scheduled flights.here are some thoughts as to my decision making. According to the most conservative numbers we could derive from the QRH; no more than 6;000 ft of runway would be required; we had 8;000 ft. Flap failures with plenty of runway available are routinely practiced in the simulator and under more demanding conditions. As a result we decided not to declare an emergency. We also decided not to have the passengers brace because we believed we had plenty of runway available. When I stopped the airplane on the runway; however; we were at the 2;000 ft marker. After landing; 3 out of 4 btms (brake temperature monitoring system) indicators went white due to the maximum-effort braking on rollout. None of the indicators went red. My advice to other crews would be to take the flaps 45 landing distance in the aom and double it. The 55% additive factor is wishful thinking; in my humble opinion. It is also good that when we practice this event in the simulator; we do it with no vertical guidance whatsoever. That way; when you do it backed up with a glide slope; it doesn't feel out of the ordinary at all.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A commuter jet flight crew experienced the failure of the flaps to extend to a normal landing setting. They opted to land on their destination airport's 8;000 FT runway as their AOM indicated they would need only 6;000 FT of runway to come to a stop based on the setting at which the flaps had failed. After coming to a stop using maximum effort braking they had 2;000 FT of runway remaining.

Narrative: When configuring for a visual approach at AVL we received a 'Flaps Fail' amber message when selecting flaps from 8 to 20. (IAS was approximately 180 KIAS). We asked Tower to give us holding instructions. We entered the holding pattern and ran the Flaps Fail QRH. We determined that 8;000 FT was plenty of runway for the conditions; so we elected to land at our destination and to not declare an emergency. This was a 'no-alternate' fuel plan and we felt that returning to our departure airport while the flaps were stuck at 17 would burn significantly more fuel.Once at the gate; Maintenance was able to talk us through resetting the flap indicator system IAW guidance found in the appropriate MEL Chapter. The outbound flight was slightly delayed; but able to its scheduled flights.Here are some thoughts as to my decision making. According to the most conservative numbers we could derive from the QRH; no more than 6;000 FT of runway would be required; we had 8;000 FT. Flap failures with plenty of runway available are routinely practiced in the simulator and under more demanding conditions. As a result we decided NOT to declare an emergency. We also decided not to have the passengers brace because we believed we had plenty of runway available. When I stopped the airplane on the runway; however; we were at the 2;000 FT marker. After landing; 3 out of 4 BTMS (Brake Temperature Monitoring System) indicators went white due to the maximum-effort braking on rollout. None of the indicators went red. My advice to other crews would be to take the flaps 45 landing distance in the AOM and double it. The 55% additive factor is wishful thinking; in my humble opinion. It is also good that when we practice this event in the simulator; we do it with no vertical guidance whatsoever. That way; when you do it backed up with a glide slope; it doesn't feel out of the ordinary at all.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.