Flight crew of an light transport experienced a momentary faulty landing gear indication during fina...

Attributes
ACN	288117
Time
Date	199411
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : mco
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 2000 msl bound upper : 2000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Dusk
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : mco
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	descent : approach ground other : taxi landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 210 flight time total : 4850 flight time type : 1800
ASRS Report	288117
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment other aircraft equipment : unspecified other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	aircraft : equipment problem dissipated flight crew : overcame equipment problem other
Consequence	faa : investigated
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

On final approach to runway 36 right into orlando international, the captain (myself) called for 'gear down/final items.' upon extension of the landing gear, the left main gear light momentarily did not illuminate. A second cycling of the gear was elected to ensure the deployment of the gear. The gear light remained lit. I elected to discontinue the landing clearance just to discuss the situation with the first officer. We both agreed that no emergency procedure was needed or to be executed. The control tower checked to see if 'everything was okay,' and we advised them 'all indications are normal.' the control tower advised that they will be dispatching the fire trucks/crash crew. We advised we did not need any assistance and cleared the runway (landing on runway 35) and again advised we did not need any assistance and taxied to the gate. The crash crew representative needed some information from myself (fuel, PIC, etc). And upon reading his report -- stated that the 'PIC declared an emergency.' this statement is completely incorrect. I did advise our company mechanic at the gate and the next crew (both PIC and first officer) about the situation. The mechanic determined that the aircraft was airworthy and the crew accepted the aircraft for the next trip. Since the gear worked correctly, I did not write any type of discrepancy. So I understand a 'fed' is wondering how an aircraft 'declared an emergency' and continue to fly without any inspection. Due to a misinformed person that doesn't fly or understand the entire scenario, he states a completely incorrect statement on a report that now causes grief to the company, when actually no emergency or problem existed. I recommend that the crew would be briefed as to how any report is filed, and a copy given to the crew. (I found this whole situation from my chief pilot.) why is the crew the last to be informed when they know exactly what had happened?

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN LTT EXPERIENCED A MOMENTARY FAULTY LNDG GEAR INDICATION DURING FINAL APCH. A GAR WAS MADE TO RECHK GEAR A-OK.

Narrative: ON FINAL APCH TO RWY 36 RIGHT INTO ORLANDO INTL, THE CAPT (MYSELF) CALLED FOR 'GEAR DOWN/FINAL ITEMS.' UPON EXTENSION OF THE LNDG GEAR, THE L MAIN GEAR LIGHT MOMENTARILY DID NOT ILLUMINATE. A SECOND CYCLING OF THE GEAR WAS ELECTED TO ENSURE THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE GEAR. THE GEAR LIGHT REMAINED LIT. I ELECTED TO DISCONTINUE THE LNDG CLRNC JUST TO DISCUSS THE SIT WITH THE FO. WE BOTH AGREED THAT NO EMER PROC WAS NEEDED OR TO BE EXECUTED. THE CTL TWR CHKED TO SEE IF 'EVERYTHING WAS OKAY,' AND WE ADVISED THEM 'ALL INDICATIONS ARE NORMAL.' THE CTL TWR ADVISED THAT THEY WILL BE DISPATCHING THE FIRE TRUCKS/CRASH CREW. WE ADVISED WE DID NOT NEED ANY ASSISTANCE AND CLRED THE RWY (LNDG ON RWY 35) AND AGAIN ADVISED WE DID NOT NEED ANY ASSISTANCE AND TAXIED TO THE GATE. THE CRASH CREW REPRESENTATIVE NEEDED SOME INFO FROM MYSELF (FUEL, PIC, ETC). AND UPON READING HIS RPT -- STATED THAT THE 'PIC DECLARED AN EMER.' THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY INCORRECT. I DID ADVISE OUR COMPANY MECH AT THE GATE AND THE NEXT CREW (BOTH PIC AND FO) ABOUT THE SIT. THE MECH DETERMINED THAT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY AND THE CREW ACCEPTED THE ACFT FOR THE NEXT TRIP. SINCE THE GEAR WORKED CORRECTLY, I DID NOT WRITE ANY TYPE OF DISCREPANCY. SO I UNDERSTAND A 'FED' IS WONDERING HOW AN ACFT 'DECLARED AN EMER' AND CONTINUE TO FLY WITHOUT ANY INSPECTION. DUE TO A MISINFORMED PERSON THAT DOESN'T FLY OR UNDERSTAND THE ENTIRE SCENARIO, HE STATES A COMPLETELY INCORRECT STATEMENT ON A RPT THAT NOW CAUSES GRIEF TO THE COMPANY, WHEN ACTUALLY NO EMER OR PROB EXISTED. I RECOMMEND THAT THE CREW WOULD BE BRIEFED AS TO HOW ANY RPT IS FILED, AND A COPY GIVEN TO THE CREW. (I FOUND THIS WHOLE SIT FROM MY CHIEF PLT.) WHY IS THE CREW THE LAST TO BE INFORMED WHEN THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAD HAPPENED?

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.

Flight crew of an light transport experienced a momentary faulty landing gear indication during final approach. A go around was made to rechk gear a-ok.