Narrative:

During slat retraction on climb out, the 'slat disagree light' illuminated. I requested a leveloff at 10000 ft and 240 KTS. After assuring ourselves it was not a nuisance fault, I requested a return to lax while the first officer completed the abnormal checklist. When the checklist was completed, I xferred aircraft control to him while I coordinated with the flight attendants and made a brief PA to the passenger. The WX was clear with good visibility and we requested runway 25R for landing and requested crash fire rescue equipment to meet our landing. When everything was prepared, I took over control of the aircraft and we proceeded with a visual approach. As the disagree light went out when the handle was returned to zero extension and no lateral trim problems were noted, we briefed a normal approach at flaps 40 degrees. All indications during approach were normal and still no lateral trim problems were noted. At 1000 ft, we verified 40 degrees/40 degrees/land. At 280 ft 'hat,' we received a 'too low flaps' warning from GPWS. We elected to continue the landing as still no abnormal indications or flying characteristics were noted. The landing and rollout were normal and we proceeded to the gate with no further incident. We did question the lack of guidance from the abnormal procedure regarding flap/slat usage. As the disagree light illuminated on retraction and no lateral trim problems were noted, the procedure just ends with no guidance on whether use of flaps/slats for landing is permitted or recommended. Perhaps the procedure should be revised to add clarification at the end of the checklist. Under the circumstances, I felt a normal 40 degree flap landing was safer than a no flap landing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF MD80 RESPOND TO SLAT DISAGREE WARNING LIGHT. RETURN TO DEP ARPT.

Narrative: DURING SLAT RETRACTION ON CLBOUT, THE 'SLAT DISAGREE LIGHT' ILLUMINATED. I REQUESTED A LEVELOFF AT 10000 FT AND 240 KTS. AFTER ASSURING OURSELVES IT WAS NOT A NUISANCE FAULT, I REQUESTED A RETURN TO LAX WHILE THE FO COMPLETED THE ABNORMAL CHKLIST. WHEN THE CHKLIST WAS COMPLETED, I XFERRED ACFT CTL TO HIM WHILE I COORDINATED WITH THE FLT ATTENDANTS AND MADE A BRIEF PA TO THE PAX. THE WX WAS CLR WITH GOOD VISIBILITY AND WE REQUESTED RWY 25R FOR LNDG AND REQUESTED CFR TO MEET OUR LNDG. WHEN EVERYTHING WAS PREPARED, I TOOK OVER CTL OF THE ACFT AND WE PROCEEDED WITH A VISUAL APCH. AS THE DISAGREE LIGHT WENT OUT WHEN THE HANDLE WAS RETURNED TO ZERO EXTENSION AND NO LATERAL TRIM PROBS WERE NOTED, WE BRIEFED A NORMAL APCH AT FLAPS 40 DEGS. ALL INDICATIONS DURING APCH WERE NORMAL AND STILL NO LATERAL TRIM PROBS WERE NOTED. AT 1000 FT, WE VERIFIED 40 DEGS/40 DEGS/LAND. AT 280 FT 'HAT,' WE RECEIVED A 'TOO LOW FLAPS' WARNING FROM GPWS. WE ELECTED TO CONTINUE THE LNDG AS STILL NO ABNORMAL INDICATIONS OR FLYING CHARACTERISTICS WERE NOTED. THE LNDG AND ROLLOUT WERE NORMAL AND WE PROCEEDED TO THE GATE WITH NO FURTHER INCIDENT. WE DID QUESTION THE LACK OF GUIDANCE FROM THE ABNORMAL PROC REGARDING FLAP/SLAT USAGE. AS THE DISAGREE LIGHT ILLUMINATED ON RETRACTION AND NO LATERAL TRIM PROBS WERE NOTED, THE PROC JUST ENDS WITH NO GUIDANCE ON WHETHER USE OF FLAPS/SLATS FOR LNDG IS PERMITTED OR RECOMMENDED. PERHAPS THE PROC SHOULD BE REVISED TO ADD CLARIFICATION AT THE END OF THE CHKLIST. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I FELT A NORMAL 40 DEG FLAP LNDG WAS SAFER THAN A NO FLAP LNDG.

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.