Narrative:

During takeoff from rdu with 2 passenger on board in conditions that were 200 ft ceilings with 1-2 mi visibility in moderate rain. We departed the runway normally, and raised the landing gear handle. The gear transit light illuminated, and all the timing was normal. Upon the gear hitting the wells and the lights going out normally, a noise could be detected in the nose gear area. My immediate thought was that a nose gear door was hanging up. I cycled the gear once more, and as before, all timing and lights were normal, but the noise in the nose gear area persisted. I informed raleigh approach/departure that we had a gear door problem, and they asked if we would like to return to rdu. With the WX at minimums at rdu, we decided to be vectored towards better WX and try to figure out the problem further. As we were heading to teb, the controller vectored us approximately on course, and we continued to climb. In the climb, we cycled the gear 2 more times, and all remained the same, including the noise. After discussing the situation with the first officer and the passenger, we decided to climb to the mid 20's (FL240), and into thinner air and leave the gear down, which had been resulting in normal noise and normal lights. All remaining portions of the flight were normal. Upon reaching teb, we let the passenger off, and I examined the nose gear area. With a flashlight, I examined the gear doors and linkage, and immediately located the problem, which was a single bolt missing from the nose gear door actuator attachment bracket, where the bracket is secured to the right side of the nose gear wheel well. I called the company dispatcher and discussed the problem with her. I asked if the director of maintenance was in town, and she said he was on a flight, which should be returning momentarily. As we were discussing the flight from rdu, the director of maintenance called in on the other line to the dispatcher. She put me on hold for approximately 1 min or 2 mins and returned to the line. She indicated that the other call was, in fact, the director of maintenance, they were back from their trip, and he was on the way to his house. I assumed that because of the length of time she was off the line with me, that she filled the director of maintenance in on our flight. When she returned to the line, I told her we had further examined the door and determined it not to be a problem for the short flight from teb to N67. I also told her we intended to leave the gear down as we had for the flight from rdu. No other problems were encountered, and we landed the aircraft normally at N67. The following day, I was informed by the operator that I had not followed procedure on the MEL issues. Although the flight from teb to N67 was a part 91 flight with no passenger, the operator persisted that I had not discussed the issue in person, myself, with the director of maintenance. My suggestion as to how this problem could be avoided is to further train the dispatcher, director of maintenance, and the line pilots as to when a flight should/should not be conducted part 135 or part 91 after any or each type of malfunction.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C500 CAPT RPTED A NOSE GEAR DOOR PROB AFTER TKOF FROM RDU.

Narrative: DURING TKOF FROM RDU WITH 2 PAX ON BOARD IN CONDITIONS THAT WERE 200 FT CEILINGS WITH 1-2 MI VISIBILITY IN MODERATE RAIN. WE DEPARTED THE RWY NORMALLY, AND RAISED THE LNDG GEAR HANDLE. THE GEAR TRANSIT LIGHT ILLUMINATED, AND ALL THE TIMING WAS NORMAL. UPON THE GEAR HITTING THE WELLS AND THE LIGHTS GOING OUT NORMALLY, A NOISE COULD BE DETECTED IN THE NOSE GEAR AREA. MY IMMEDIATE THOUGHT WAS THAT A NOSE GEAR DOOR WAS HANGING UP. I CYCLED THE GEAR ONCE MORE, AND AS BEFORE, ALL TIMING AND LIGHTS WERE NORMAL, BUT THE NOISE IN THE NOSE GEAR AREA PERSISTED. I INFORMED RALEIGH APCH/DEP THAT WE HAD A GEAR DOOR PROB, AND THEY ASKED IF WE WOULD LIKE TO RETURN TO RDU. WITH THE WX AT MINIMUMS AT RDU, WE DECIDED TO BE VECTORED TOWARDS BETTER WX AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE PROB FURTHER. AS WE WERE HEADING TO TEB, THE CTLR VECTORED US APPROX ON COURSE, AND WE CONTINUED TO CLB. IN THE CLB, WE CYCLED THE GEAR 2 MORE TIMES, AND ALL REMAINED THE SAME, INCLUDING THE NOISE. AFTER DISCUSSING THE SIT WITH THE FO AND THE PAX, WE DECIDED TO CLB TO THE MID 20'S (FL240), AND INTO THINNER AIR AND LEAVE THE GEAR DOWN, WHICH HAD BEEN RESULTING IN NORMAL NOISE AND NORMAL LIGHTS. ALL REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE FLT WERE NORMAL. UPON REACHING TEB, WE LET THE PAX OFF, AND I EXAMINED THE NOSE GEAR AREA. WITH A FLASHLIGHT, I EXAMINED THE GEAR DOORS AND LINKAGE, AND IMMEDIATELY LOCATED THE PROB, WHICH WAS A SINGLE BOLT MISSING FROM THE NOSE GEAR DOOR ACTUATOR ATTACHMENT BRACKET, WHERE THE BRACKET IS SECURED TO THE R SIDE OF THE NOSE GEAR WHEEL WELL. I CALLED THE COMPANY DISPATCHER AND DISCUSSED THE PROB WITH HER. I ASKED IF THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT WAS IN TOWN, AND SHE SAID HE WAS ON A FLT, WHICH SHOULD BE RETURNING MOMENTARILY. AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THE FLT FROM RDU, THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT CALLED IN ON THE OTHER LINE TO THE DISPATCHER. SHE PUT ME ON HOLD FOR APPROX 1 MIN OR 2 MINS AND RETURNED TO THE LINE. SHE INDICATED THAT THE OTHER CALL WAS, IN FACT, THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT, THEY WERE BACK FROM THEIR TRIP, AND HE WAS ON THE WAY TO HIS HOUSE. I ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF TIME SHE WAS OFF THE LINE WITH ME, THAT SHE FILLED THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT IN ON OUR FLT. WHEN SHE RETURNED TO THE LINE, I TOLD HER WE HAD FURTHER EXAMINED THE DOOR AND DETERMINED IT NOT TO BE A PROB FOR THE SHORT FLT FROM TEB TO N67. I ALSO TOLD HER WE INTENDED TO LEAVE THE GEAR DOWN AS WE HAD FOR THE FLT FROM RDU. NO OTHER PROBS WERE ENCOUNTERED, AND WE LANDED THE ACFT NORMALLY AT N67. THE FOLLOWING DAY, I WAS INFORMED BY THE OPERATOR THAT I HAD NOT FOLLOWED PROC ON THE MEL ISSUES. ALTHOUGH THE FLT FROM TEB TO N67 WAS A PART 91 FLT WITH NO PAX, THE OPERATOR PERSISTED THAT I HAD NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN PERSON, MYSELF, WITH THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT. MY SUGGESTION AS TO HOW THIS PROB COULD BE AVOIDED IS TO FURTHER TRAIN THE DISPATCHER, DIRECTOR OF MAINT, AND THE LINE PLTS AS TO WHEN A FLT SHOULD/SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTED PART 135 OR PART 91 AFTER ANY OR EACH TYPE OF MALFUNCTION.

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.