Narrative:

While landing at pir, sd, I noticed that the landing gear did not extend on the PA34 I was flying, so I used the manual extension procedure. The PA34 manual requires that if a manual gear extension is done, a mechanic must inspect the system prior to any electric retraction, so I was unable to troubleshoot it, or more specifically, I had heard that this same plane had done this before and no problem was found by mechanics. No mechanic was available so I called my director of operations at base in bismarck and he told me to fly home with the gear down. With one passenger and light on fuel, I saw no safety concern, so I did. I suspected that the ghost had returned and the gear would work fine, but the manual does not allow any attempt. My suspicion was confirmed by a mechanic back at bismark, who inspected it and found no problem. 2 days later the problem returned with another pilot. I have recently started flying again under part 91 FARS and acted as such in this instance while operating under 135 FARS. Having spoken with the mechanic personally, I forgot to write the problem up. However, it was investigated timely. (Eventually a loose ground wire was found.) also, upon reflection, under 135 rules, an overnight stay in pir would have been required until a mechanic could have looked at the problem. My recent return to part 91 flying influenced or dictated my actions. Also, my director of operations influenced my decision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PA34 ACFT WAS OPERATED IN PART 135 FLT WITH LNDG GEAR EXTEND RETRACT SYS INOP IN NORMAL MODE. OPERATED GEAR DOWN.

Narrative: WHILE LNDG AT PIR, SD, I NOTICED THAT THE LNDG GEAR DID NOT EXTEND ON THE PA34 I WAS FLYING, SO I USED THE MANUAL EXTENSION PROC. THE PA34 MANUAL REQUIRES THAT IF A MANUAL GEAR EXTENSION IS DONE, A MECH MUST INSPECT THE SYS PRIOR TO ANY ELECTRIC RETRACTION, SO I WAS UNABLE TO TROUBLESHOOT IT, OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, I HAD HEARD THAT THIS SAME PLANE HAD DONE THIS BEFORE AND NO PROB WAS FOUND BY MECHS. NO MECH WAS AVAILABLE SO I CALLED MY DIRECTOR OF OPS AT BASE IN BISMARCK AND HE TOLD ME TO FLY HOME WITH THE GEAR DOWN. WITH ONE PAX AND LIGHT ON FUEL, I SAW NO SAFETY CONCERN, SO I DID. I SUSPECTED THAT THE GHOST HAD RETURNED AND THE GEAR WOULD WORK FINE, BUT THE MANUAL DOES NOT ALLOW ANY ATTEMPT. MY SUSPICION WAS CONFIRMED BY A MECH BACK AT BISMARK, WHO INSPECTED IT AND FOUND NO PROB. 2 DAYS LATER THE PROB RETURNED WITH ANOTHER PLT. I HAVE RECENTLY STARTED FLYING AGAIN UNDER PART 91 FARS AND ACTED AS SUCH IN THIS INSTANCE WHILE OPERATING UNDER 135 FARS. HAVING SPOKEN WITH THE MECH PERSONALLY, I FORGOT TO WRITE THE PROB UP. HOWEVER, IT WAS INVESTIGATED TIMELY. (EVENTUALLY A LOOSE GND WIRE WAS FOUND.) ALSO, UPON REFLECTION, UNDER 135 RULES, AN OVERNIGHT STAY IN PIR WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED UNTIL A MECH COULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE PROB. MY RECENT RETURN TO PART 91 FLYING INFLUENCED OR DICTATED MY ACTIONS. ALSO, MY DIRECTOR OF OPS INFLUENCED MY DECISION.

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.