Narrative:

Aircraft was on a visual approach to gtf and the nose gear unsafe light remained on after gear extension, although all other indications were normal -- including the sound of nose gear and doors. We requested visual holding and before we started the required procedure, the unsafe light went out by itself and the green light went on, indicating normal gear operation. Aircraft landing was normal and gear down lock and switch was inspected by the crew and found to be normal. I did not write it up because the situation no longer existed, and the gear operated normally at the next stop. I mentioned to the receiving crew what we had noticed and that the nose gear operated normally. I believe that was incorrect and I should have written up the nose gear in the logbook and had a maintenance inspection in spite of the seeming normalcy of the operation -- as those decisions should only be made by maintenance at the end of flight, also, it would provide a written record to be taken into account for any future operations. I believe there is presently an overemphasis on operating 'on time' from a marketing standpoint and this causes a subtle pressure to hurry where it might not be the most prudent course of action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT EQUIP PROBLEM WITH FAULTY NOSE GEAR CIRCUITRY ON APCH. PROBLEM CORRECTS ITSELF AND PIC FAILS TO ENTER ITEM IN LOGBOOK.

Narrative: ACFT WAS ON A VISUAL APCH TO GTF AND THE NOSE GEAR UNSAFE LIGHT REMAINED ON AFTER GEAR EXTENSION, ALTHOUGH ALL OTHER INDICATIONS WERE NORMAL -- INCLUDING THE SOUND OF NOSE GEAR AND DOORS. WE REQUESTED VISUAL HOLDING AND BEFORE WE STARTED THE REQUIRED PROC, THE UNSAFE LIGHT WENT OUT BY ITSELF AND THE GREEN LIGHT WENT ON, INDICATING NORMAL GEAR OP. ACFT LNDG WAS NORMAL AND GEAR DOWN LOCK AND SWITCH WAS INSPECTED BY THE CREW AND FOUND TO BE NORMAL. I DID NOT WRITE IT UP BECAUSE THE SITUATION NO LONGER EXISTED, AND THE GEAR OPERATED NORMALLY AT THE NEXT STOP. I MENTIONED TO THE RECEIVING CREW WHAT WE HAD NOTICED AND THAT THE NOSE GEAR OPERATED NORMALLY. I BELIEVE THAT WAS INCORRECT AND I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN UP THE NOSE GEAR IN THE LOGBOOK AND HAD A MAINT INSPECTION IN SPITE OF THE SEEMING NORMALCY OF THE OP -- AS THOSE DECISIONS SHOULD ONLY BE MADE BY MAINT AT THE END OF FLT, ALSO, IT WOULD PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECORD TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR ANY FUTURE OPS. I BELIEVE THERE IS PRESENTLY AN OVEREMPHASIS ON OPERATING 'ON TIME' FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT AND THIS CAUSES A SUBTLE PRESSURE TO HURRY WHERE IT MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION.

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.