Narrative:

We were flying a trip from chicago to st petersburg back to chicago. The aircraft was 1/2 hour late coming to chicago because the left gear/handle disagreement light came on while the crew was doing their preflight checks. The light was obviously in error since the aircraft was on the ground with the gear handle down. Maintenance wrote a corrective action of cleaning the cannon plug. The light did not recur on the flight to chicago, nor on our flight to st petersburg. After we started engines for our return flight, however, the light did come on. Based on the incident of that morning, plus the fact that the aircraft had a history of that light illuminating (from reviewing the aircraft log), we decided to take the aircraft. An additional factor in our decision was that chicago was a maintenance base while there was little support at st petersburg. After we had taken off and leveled, though, I realized I had not thought through the consequences of possible problems. I allowed the false security of an understandable repeating problem to ignore a red warning light. I realized that if that light came on again when we lowered the gear handle for landing I would have to treat it as a potentially valid problem. As a minimum we would have to depart the traffic pattern so the flight engineer could visually inspect a good gear down indication. As it turned out, when we lowered the gear handle the light did not illuminate. But the episode showed me, once again, to take my time and consider all potential consequences. And not to count on a written up problem to repeat itself for all situation exactly.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF A B727 OPERATED THE ACFT EVEN THOUGH THE L LNDG GEAR DISAGREEMENT RED WARNING LIGHT CAME ON DURING PREFLT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ACFT WAS RESTING ON THE GEAR ON THE GND, AND IT HAD HAPPENED EARLIER WITH ANOTHER FLC.

Narrative: WE WERE FLYING A TRIP FROM CHICAGO TO ST PETERSBURG BACK TO CHICAGO. THE ACFT WAS 1/2 HR LATE COMING TO CHICAGO BECAUSE THE L GEAR/HANDLE DISAGREEMENT LIGHT CAME ON WHILE THE CREW WAS DOING THEIR PREFLT CHKS. THE LIGHT WAS OBVIOUSLY IN ERROR SINCE THE ACFT WAS ON THE GND WITH THE GEAR HANDLE DOWN. MAINT WROTE A CORRECTIVE ACTION OF CLEANING THE CANNON PLUG. THE LIGHT DID NOT RECUR ON THE FLT TO CHICAGO, NOR ON OUR FLT TO ST PETERSBURG. AFTER WE STARTED ENGS FOR OUR RETURN FLT, HOWEVER, THE LIGHT DID COME ON. BASED ON THE INCIDENT OF THAT MORNING, PLUS THE FACT THAT THE ACFT HAD A HISTORY OF THAT LIGHT ILLUMINATING (FROM REVIEWING THE ACFT LOG), WE DECIDED TO TAKE THE ACFT. AN ADDITIONAL FACTOR IN OUR DECISION WAS THAT CHICAGO WAS A MAINT BASE WHILE THERE WAS LITTLE SUPPORT AT ST PETERSBURG. AFTER WE HAD TAKEN OFF AND LEVELED, THOUGH, I REALIZED I HAD NOT THOUGHT THROUGH THE CONSEQUENCES OF POSSIBLE PROBS. I ALLOWED THE FALSE SECURITY OF AN UNDERSTANDABLE REPEATING PROB TO IGNORE A RED WARNING LIGHT. I REALIZED THAT IF THAT LIGHT CAME ON AGAIN WHEN WE LOWERED THE GEAR HANDLE FOR LNDG I WOULD HAVE TO TREAT IT AS A POTENTIALLY VALID PROB. AS A MINIMUM WE WOULD HAVE TO DEPART THE TFC PATTERN SO THE FE COULD VISUALLY INSPECT A GOOD GEAR DOWN INDICATION. AS IT TURNED OUT, WHEN WE LOWERED THE GEAR HANDLE THE LIGHT DID NOT ILLUMINATE. BUT THE EPISODE SHOWED ME, ONCE AGAIN, TO TAKE MY TIME AND CONSIDER ALL POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES. AND NOT TO COUNT ON A WRITTEN UP PROB TO REPEAT ITSELF FOR ALL SIT EXACTLY.

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.