Narrative:

I was the pilot flying a visual approach to runway 6. Although I was on the localizer and glide path, my speed was approximately 15 KTS fast (plus bug speed) at 300 ft. This exceeds our companies tolerance for a stabilized approach, especially when landing on a 7000 ft runway. I elected to execute a go around. During the subsequent gear retraction, the red nose gear warning light remained illuminated. The first officer was instructed to run the appropriate check list which quickly rectified the problem. The light may have illuminated initially because the gear handle was placed in the off position too quickly. The gear functioned totally normally from this point and we had a normal approach and landing. I discussed the gear event with the crew now taking the aircraft. I told them that I believed it was a very brief anomaly and the gear to be operating normally. They concurred and flew the aircraft without any further problems. In hindsight I should have conferred with our maintenance department and gotten their opinion. I did not document the problem in the logbook. Our maintenance department probably could have given me more insight on how they would have liked the paperwork handled and if they wanted contract mechanics to et involved. Next time I will consult them when an unusual situation arises.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-200 FLT CREW IMPROPERLY OPERATED THE LNDG GEAR EXTENSION CTL LEVEL RESULTING IN THE NOSE GEAR RED LIGHT ON AFTER RISING THE GEAR DURING A GO AROUND.

Narrative: I WAS THE PLT FLYING A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 6. ALTHOUGH I WAS ON THE LOCALIZER AND GLIDE PATH, MY SPD WAS APPROX 15 KTS FAST (PLUS BUG SPD) AT 300 FT. THIS EXCEEDS OUR COMPANIES TOLERANCE FOR A STABILIZED APCH, ESPECIALLY WHEN LNDG ON A 7000 FT RWY. I ELECTED TO EXECUTE A GO AROUND. DURING THE SUBSEQUENT GEAR RETRACTION, THE RED NOSE GEAR WARNING LIGHT REMAINED ILLUMINATED. THE FO WAS INSTRUCTED TO RUN THE APPROPRIATE CHECK LIST WHICH QUICKLY RECTIFIED THE PROB. THE LIGHT MAY HAVE ILLUMINATED INITIALLY BECAUSE THE GEAR HANDLE WAS PLACED IN THE OFF POS TOO QUICKLY. THE GEAR FUNCTIONED TOTALLY NORMALLY FROM THIS POINT AND WE HAD A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. I DISCUSSED THE GEAR EVENT WITH THE CREW NOW TAKING THE ACFT. I TOLD THEM THAT I BELIEVED IT WAS A VERY BRIEF ANOMALY AND THE GEAR TO BE OPERATING NORMALLY. THEY CONCURRED AND FLEW THE ACFT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER PROBS. IN HINDSIGHT I SHOULD HAVE CONFERRED WITH OUR MAINT DEPT AND GOTTEN THEIR OPINION. I DID NOT DOCUMENT THE PROB IN THE LOGBOOK. OUR MAINT DEPT PROBABLY COULD HAVE GIVEN ME MORE INSIGHT ON HOW THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED THE PAPERWORK HANDLED AND IF THEY WANTED CONTRACT MECHANICS TO ET INVOLVED. NEXT TIME I WILL CONSULT THEM WHEN AN UNUSUAL SIT ARISES.

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.