Narrative:

Departed en route to ZZZ. On climb, noticed leading edge transit light and visually confirmed led's slightly extended. Due to light load and resulting fast climb and short 26 min scheduled flight time, we were at final cruise altitude. Within a few mins of time we needed to descend into ZZZ, so we finished troubleshooting, checklist, contacting dispatch and discussion with dispatch. Rather than return to our departing city, dispatch agreed that it made more sense to land at ZZZ rather than turn around and land. We did not consider, at the time, that we were deviating from company policy because of the parenthetical note in the QRH indicating that the return policy applied if the flap problem occurred 'shortly after departure.' in this case, we reasoned that since we were almost half way to ZZZ by the time we finished the required procedures, we were no longer required by policy to return to the destination and continuing made more sense. Upon closer observation of the fom, I discovered no such disclaimer (as is indicated in the QRH) so I now conclude that we did deviate from company policy. I suggest that guidance be provided regarding the intent of company policy regarding flap problems occurring on short flts. Once the safety of the flight is established (in this case, the slats were so slightly extended that they might be considered functionally retracted) it is possible to continue for a short few mins to scheduled destination. It might make more sense to continue. Continuing to a very close destination also makes sense because the follow-up checklist calls for the non-normal flap landing checklist, which usually requires an extended vector to final before landing in order to complete the non-normal flap landing checklist. I conclude that we may have landed 10 mins earlier by returning to our departing city, but that the relative safety of the operation was actually safer by continuing to the destination in this case. I think it was safer because we had time to conduct the checklists, without having to re-enter the busy mia approach airspace, asking for extended vectors, trying to watch out for low flying aircraft. Supplemental information from acn 593882: the captain left frequency to talk to dispatch and by this time we were getting close to the half way point to ZZZ. The captain came back up and said we're continuing to ZZZ and I thought that was the right choice at the time. After an uneventful landing at ZZZ, we talked about the decision and in hindsight, it appears we violated the fom by not proceeding back. At the time it seemed to be the right move to continue to ZZZ where we have maintenance but in the future I'll pay more attention to the notes in the QRH.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 FLT CREW CONTINUES THEIR SHORT FLT TO DEST ARPT AFTER EXPERIENCING A LEADING EDGE FLAP FAULT AFTER TKOF FROM THEIR DEP ARPT.

Narrative: DEPARTED ENRTE TO ZZZ. ON CLB, NOTICED LEADING EDGE TRANSIT LIGHT AND VISUALLY CONFIRMED LED'S SLIGHTLY EXTENDED. DUE TO LIGHT LOAD AND RESULTING FAST CLB AND SHORT 26 MIN SCHEDULED FLT TIME, WE WERE AT FINAL CRUISE ALT. WITHIN A FEW MINS OF TIME WE NEEDED TO DSND INTO ZZZ, SO WE FINISHED TROUBLESHOOTING, CHKLIST, CONTACTING DISPATCH AND DISCUSSION WITH DISPATCH. RATHER THAN RETURN TO OUR DEPARTING CITY, DISPATCH AGREED THAT IT MADE MORE SENSE TO LAND AT ZZZ RATHER THAN TURN AROUND AND LAND. WE DID NOT CONSIDER, AT THE TIME, THAT WE WERE DEVIATING FROM COMPANY POLICY BECAUSE OF THE PARENTHETICAL NOTE IN THE QRH INDICATING THAT THE RETURN POLICY APPLIED IF THE FLAP PROB OCCURRED 'SHORTLY AFTER DEP.' IN THIS CASE, WE REASONED THAT SINCE WE WERE ALMOST HALF WAY TO ZZZ BY THE TIME WE FINISHED THE REQUIRED PROCS, WE WERE NO LONGER REQUIRED BY POLICY TO RETURN TO THE DEST AND CONTINUING MADE MORE SENSE. UPON CLOSER OBSERVATION OF THE FOM, I DISCOVERED NO SUCH DISCLAIMER (AS IS INDICATED IN THE QRH) SO I NOW CONCLUDE THAT WE DID DEVIATE FROM COMPANY POLICY. I SUGGEST THAT GUIDANCE BE PROVIDED REGARDING THE INTENT OF COMPANY POLICY REGARDING FLAP PROBS OCCURRING ON SHORT FLTS. ONCE THE SAFETY OF THE FLT IS ESTABLISHED (IN THIS CASE, THE SLATS WERE SO SLIGHTLY EXTENDED THAT THEY MIGHT BE CONSIDERED FUNCTIONALLY RETRACTED) IT IS POSSIBLE TO CONTINUE FOR A SHORT FEW MINS TO SCHEDULED DEST. IT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE TO CONTINUE. CONTINUING TO A VERY CLOSE DEST ALSO MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE FOLLOW-UP CHKLIST CALLS FOR THE NON-NORMAL FLAP LNDG CHKLIST, WHICH USUALLY REQUIRES AN EXTENDED VECTOR TO FINAL BEFORE LNDG IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE NON-NORMAL FLAP LNDG CHKLIST. I CONCLUDE THAT WE MAY HAVE LANDED 10 MINS EARLIER BY RETURNING TO OUR DEPARTING CITY, BUT THAT THE RELATIVE SAFETY OF THE OP WAS ACTUALLY SAFER BY CONTINUING TO THE DEST IN THIS CASE. I THINK IT WAS SAFER BECAUSE WE HAD TIME TO CONDUCT THE CHKLISTS, WITHOUT HAVING TO RE-ENTER THE BUSY MIA APCH AIRSPACE, ASKING FOR EXTENDED VECTORS, TRYING TO WATCH OUT FOR LOW FLYING ACFT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 593882: THE CAPT LEFT FREQ TO TALK TO DISPATCH AND BY THIS TIME WE WERE GETTING CLOSE TO THE HALF WAY POINT TO ZZZ. THE CAPT CAME BACK UP AND SAID WE'RE CONTINUING TO ZZZ AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE AT THE TIME. AFTER AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG AT ZZZ, WE TALKED ABOUT THE DECISION AND IN HINDSIGHT, IT APPEARS WE VIOLATED THE FOM BY NOT PROCEEDING BACK. AT THE TIME IT SEEMED TO BE THE RIGHT MOVE TO CONTINUE TO ZZZ WHERE WE HAVE MAINT BUT IN THE FUTURE I'LL PAY MORE ATTN TO THE NOTES IN THE QRH.

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.