Narrative:

On a scheduled trip pairing which landed in saipan and continued to guam we had, prior to landing at saipan, a nose gear which failed to extend. We cycled the gear back up and then down a second time. The gear extended normally and we landed without delay on incident. The situation was explained to maintenance. The course of action was discussed with the line mechanic, the maintenance supervisor, and maintenance control for the airline. I was uncertain whether I had a 'problem' or whether the 'problem' was fixed by itself and no further action was needed, so I did not initially make a logbook write-up. The mechanics at all 3 levels (line mechanic, supervisor, and maintenance control) recommended that I fly to guam without a write-up. I was assured that a full check could be made at guam to preclude any future problems. In saipan, a thorough visual check was made and the mechanic's felt no reoccurrence would take place. I was not fully satisfied and believed the problem could reoccur. A full gear swing, which would remove any doubt, could not be done in saipan, but could be done in guam. I elected to fly to guam without retracting the gear so a full gear swing could be done before the next flight where the gear was retracted. The flight with gear down was only 111 NM and did not represent a safety threat. However I later wondered whether I should have done it with passenger on board or whether I should have done a maintenance ferry flight. The mechanics may have overly influenced me to go when a better 'procedure' might have been available. Next time I will try to identify more options and find the best one.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: GEAR DOWN PAX FLT OPERATED IN VIOLATION OF FAR 121 PT 628, FAR 21 PT 197-199.

Narrative: ON A SCHEDULED TRIP PAIRING WHICH LANDED IN SAIPAN AND CONTINUED TO GUAM WE HAD, PRIOR TO LNDG AT SAIPAN, A NOSE GEAR WHICH FAILED TO EXTEND. WE CYCLED THE GEAR BACK UP AND THEN DOWN A SECOND TIME. THE GEAR EXTENDED NORMALLY AND WE LANDED WITHOUT DELAY ON INCIDENT. THE SIT WAS EXPLAINED TO MAINT. THE COURSE OF ACTION WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE LINE MECH, THE MAINT SUPVR, AND MAINT CTL FOR THE AIRLINE. I WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER I HAD A 'PROB' OR WHETHER THE 'PROB' WAS FIXED BY ITSELF AND NO FURTHER ACTION WAS NEEDED, SO I DID NOT INITIALLY MAKE A LOGBOOK WRITE-UP. THE MECHS AT ALL 3 LEVELS (LINE MECH, SUPVR, AND MAINT CTL) RECOMMENDED THAT I FLY TO GUAM WITHOUT A WRITE-UP. I WAS ASSURED THAT A FULL CHK COULD BE MADE AT GUAM TO PRECLUDE ANY FUTURE PROBS. IN SAIPAN, A THOROUGH VISUAL CHK WAS MADE AND THE MECH'S FELT NO REOCCURRENCE WOULD TAKE PLACE. I WAS NOT FULLY SATISFIED AND BELIEVED THE PROB COULD REOCCUR. A FULL GEAR SWING, WHICH WOULD REMOVE ANY DOUBT, COULD NOT BE DONE IN SAIPAN, BUT COULD BE DONE IN GUAM. I ELECTED TO FLY TO GUAM WITHOUT RETRACTING THE GEAR SO A FULL GEAR SWING COULD BE DONE BEFORE THE NEXT FLT WHERE THE GEAR WAS RETRACTED. THE FLT WITH GEAR DOWN WAS ONLY 111 NM AND DID NOT REPRESENT A SAFETY THREAT. HOWEVER I LATER WONDERED WHETHER I SHOULD HAVE DONE IT WITH PAX ON BOARD OR WHETHER I SHOULD HAVE DONE A MAINT FERRY FLT. THE MECHS MAY HAVE OVERLY INFLUENCED ME TO GO WHEN A BETTER 'PROC' MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. NEXT TIME I WILL TRY TO IDENT MORE OPTIONS AND FIND THE BEST ONE.

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.