Narrative:

While configuring to flaps 5 during a cat I approach; we had a tef disagree EICAS. As we had some time; we attempted the QRH procedure for tef disagree. After configuring to flaps 20; we determined together that we could not satisfy the checklist and be stable; so the first officer (first officer) executed a go around. During the go around (already at flaps 20 with alternate flaps used) the pilot flying (PF) asked for flaps 5. Rotating the alternate flaps switch to 5; the EICAS went away. During the downwind; getting ready for another CAT I minimum approach; we discussed returning to normal flap operation; to enable flaps 30 configuration. I was aware this departure from the QRH is not foreseen in the QRH. Given the weather; and the indications; I saw a real benefit in both the slower speed; and the more predictable pitch attitude. I was concerned with the flare and sight picture change when combined with the ceiling a low visibility. I believed that we would again be notified if there was another tef disagree condition. I chose; with the first officer concurrence; to deselect the alternate lef and tef altn switches and reposition the alt flap selector to norm.this is a deviation from the manual.initial malfunction; combined with weather to influence decision based on experience; system knowledge; and limitations. Decision a little rushed because there was plenty of fuel; and we were in a downwind. I am not sure that I would decide otherwise. In the end we had to do another go around due to a runway incursion (!!!) and so the flaps did successfully configure two times all the way to flaps 30. I do need to remind myself of the tef system and the appropriate indications throughout the check list.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757-200 flight crew reported experiencing a trailing edge flap malfunction on approach; but the system returned to normal on the go-around; so the QRH was abandoned.

Narrative: While configuring to flaps 5 during a Cat I approach; we had a TEF DISAGREE EICAS. As we had some time; we attempted the QRH procedure for TEF DISAGREE. After configuring to flaps 20; we determined together that we could not satisfy the checklist and be stable; so the First Officer (FO) executed a go around. During the Go around (already at Flaps 20 with alternate flaps used) the Pilot Flying (PF) asked for flaps 5. Rotating the alternate flaps switch to 5; the EICAS went away. During the downwind; getting ready for another CAT I minimum approach; we discussed returning to normal flap operation; to enable flaps 30 configuration. I was aware this departure from the QRH is not foreseen in the QRH. Given the weather; and the indications; I saw a real benefit in both the slower speed; and the more predictable pitch attitude. I was concerned with the flare and sight picture change when combined with the ceiling a low visibility. I believed that we would again be notified if there was another TEF DISAGREE condition. I chose; with the FO concurrence; to deselect the Alternate LEF and TEF Altn switches and reposition the Alt Flap Selector to Norm.This is a deviation from the manual.Initial malfunction; combined with weather to influence decision based on experience; system knowledge; and limitations. Decision a little rushed because there was plenty of fuel; and we were in a downwind. I am not sure that I would decide otherwise. In the end we had to do another go around due to a runway incursion (!!!) and so the flaps did successfully configure two times all the way to flaps 30. I do need to remind myself of the TEF system and the appropriate indications throughout the check list.

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.