Narrative:

Proximity system failure 'status' message on EICAS. No pilot action required. After selecting flaps to 20 degrees, the gear indications on the primary EICAS display appeared red 'hashed' boxes. After selecting gear down these indications continued. The approach was abandoned and the procedures led to emergency gear extension. When the emergency gear extension lever was pulled, only the nose gear became green. A fly-by was performed at cvg and the tower confirmed only nose gear down. Only after getting out of my seat and applying extreme force was I able to get the extension handle up the last 1 inch or less and successfully extend the main gear for a safe landing. I feel the emergency gear extension should not be that hard to accomplish. I'm in good physical condition and was able to pull hard enough. I do feel that some crew members may not be able to perform that procedure. This procedure should be tested and inspected on a regular basis for certification compliance. (How much strength is required?) callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter said that he considers himself in good physical condition, yet he had difficulty applying enough force to the manual landing gear extension handle on this CL65 to successfully extend the main gear. He estimates that the lifting force was around 200 pounds. In addition, the extension process is, in the reporter's opinion, too complicated. Not only was he required to stand up and use both hands to move the handle to its full travel, but once extended the pilot must depress a button on the top of the handle and then lower it to the stowed position in order to repressurize the gear accumulator. If this button is pushed or bumped before reaching its full travel, with the gear indicators showing the gear is completely extended, the process stops and the whole procedure must begin again. After landing, the reporter could not get much information from the maintenance personnel concerning the manual gear extension problem. The next day he went to the maintenance hangar where the aircraft was being readied for a test flight and the maintenance personnel refused to talk with him and prevented him from approaching the aircraft. He later talked with the test flight crew. The reporter alleged that the test flight crew attempted to manually extend the landing while the aircraft was on jacks. The test crew was unable to get the nose gear extended on the first attempt. The maintenance personnel, apparently, told the test crew that they had rerigged the manual cable system. For the second attempt at manually extending the gear while in the jacks the cables were again restrung and this test also failed. The cables were adjusted and the gear was successfully extended this time. During the test flight the gear was again successively extended, but the test crew reported that the effort to move the handle was still great. The repair was signed off and the aircraft was put back in service without further maintenance according to the reporter. The reporter said that he wrote to the manufacturer about his experience during his emergency, but thus far, he has received no answer.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACR CL65 FLC RPTS THAT THEY HAD TO USE MUCH MORE FORCE THAN EXPECTED TO MANUALLY EXTEND THE LNDG GEAR. THE FO HAD TO STAND UP AND HE ESTIMATES THAT THE LIFTING FORCE NECESSARY TO MOVE THIS RATCHET HANDLE FULL TRAVEL WAS APPROX 200 LBS. ADDITIONALLY, THE RPTR FELT THAT THE GEAR EXTENSION PROC WAS ALSO OVERLY COMPLICATED.

Narrative: PROX SYS FAILURE 'STATUS' MESSAGE ON EICAS. NO PLT ACTION REQUIRED. AFTER SELECTING FLAPS TO 20 DEGS, THE GEAR INDICATIONS ON THE PRIMARY EICAS DISPLAY APPEARED RED 'HASHED' BOXES. AFTER SELECTING GEAR DOWN THESE INDICATIONS CONTINUED. THE APCH WAS ABANDONED AND THE PROCS LED TO EMER GEAR EXTENSION. WHEN THE EMER GEAR EXTENSION LEVER WAS PULLED, ONLY THE NOSE GEAR BECAME GREEN. A FLY-BY WAS PERFORMED AT CVG AND THE TWR CONFIRMED ONLY NOSE GEAR DOWN. ONLY AFTER GETTING OUT OF MY SEAT AND APPLYING EXTREME FORCE WAS I ABLE TO GET THE EXTENSION HANDLE UP THE LAST 1 INCH OR LESS AND SUCCESSFULLY EXTEND THE MAIN GEAR FOR A SAFE LNDG. I FEEL THE EMER GEAR EXTENSION SHOULD NOT BE THAT HARD TO ACCOMPLISH. I'M IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION AND WAS ABLE TO PULL HARD ENOUGH. I DO FEEL THAT SOME CREW MEMBERS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PERFORM THAT PROC. THIS PROC SHOULD BE TESTED AND INSPECTED ON A REGULAR BASIS FOR CERTIFICATION COMPLIANCE. (HOW MUCH STRENGTH IS REQUIRED?) CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR SAID THAT HE CONSIDERS HIMSELF IN GOOD PHYSICAL CONDITION, YET HE HAD DIFFICULTY APPLYING ENOUGH FORCE TO THE MANUAL LNDG GEAR EXTENSION HANDLE ON THIS CL65 TO SUCCESSFULLY EXTEND THE MAIN GEAR. HE ESTIMATES THAT THE LIFTING FORCE WAS AROUND 200 LBS. IN ADDITION, THE EXTENSION PROCESS IS, IN THE RPTR'S OPINION, TOO COMPLICATED. NOT ONLY WAS HE REQUIRED TO STAND UP AND USE BOTH HANDS TO MOVE THE HANDLE TO ITS FULL TRAVEL, BUT ONCE EXTENDED THE PLT MUST DEPRESS A BUTTON ON THE TOP OF THE HANDLE AND THEN LOWER IT TO THE STOWED POS IN ORDER TO REPRESSURIZE THE GEAR ACCUMULATOR. IF THIS BUTTON IS PUSHED OR BUMPED BEFORE REACHING ITS FULL TRAVEL, WITH THE GEAR INDICATORS SHOWING THE GEAR IS COMPLETELY EXTENDED, THE PROCESS STOPS AND THE WHOLE PROC MUST BEGIN AGAIN. AFTER LNDG, THE RPTR COULD NOT GET MUCH INFO FROM THE MAINT PERSONNEL CONCERNING THE MANUAL GEAR EXTENSION PROB. THE NEXT DAY HE WENT TO THE MAINT HANGAR WHERE THE ACFT WAS BEING READIED FOR A TEST FLT AND THE MAINT PERSONNEL REFUSED TO TALK WITH HIM AND PREVENTED HIM FROM APCHING THE ACFT. HE LATER TALKED WITH THE TEST FLC. THE RPTR ALLEGED THAT THE TEST FLC ATTEMPTED TO MANUALLY EXTEND THE LNDG WHILE THE ACFT WAS ON JACKS. THE TEST CREW WAS UNABLE TO GET THE NOSE GEAR EXTENDED ON THE FIRST ATTEMPT. THE MAINT PERSONNEL, APPARENTLY, TOLD THE TEST CREW THAT THEY HAD RERIGGED THE MANUAL CABLE SYS. FOR THE SECOND ATTEMPT AT MANUALLY EXTENDING THE GEAR WHILE IN THE JACKS THE CABLES WERE AGAIN RESTRUNG AND THIS TEST ALSO FAILED. THE CABLES WERE ADJUSTED AND THE GEAR WAS SUCCESSFULLY EXTENDED THIS TIME. DURING THE TEST FLT THE GEAR WAS AGAIN SUCCESSIVELY EXTENDED, BUT THE TEST CREW RPTED THAT THE EFFORT TO MOVE THE HANDLE WAS STILL GREAT. THE REPAIR WAS SIGNED OFF AND THE ACFT WAS PUT BACK IN SVC WITHOUT FURTHER MAINT ACCORDING TO THE RPTR. THE RPTR SAID THAT HE WROTE TO THE MANUFACTURER ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE DURING HIS EMER, BUT THUS FAR, HE HAS RECEIVED NO ANSWER.

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.