Narrative:

After takeoff; right main red gear light remained illuminated with the gear handle up. Moved handle to off; right main red and green gear light illuminated. We leveled off to set up for a return to anc. The aircraft handled and sounded like the gear was in the up position at 4000 ft MSL and 220 KIAS. The same gear indication problem had occurred during a previous flight. Maintenance control concluded it was the same indication problem and together we decided to continue to ZZZ. We resumed our departure. Climb rate was lower than normal and right yaw increased as airspeed increased. Leveling off; a higher than normal power setting was required to maintain unaccelerated level flight. It became very obvious that we did not have a gear indication problem. We called dispatch and returned to anc. Gear lowered normally and the landing was uneventful. After blocking in; I learned from the mechanics that the previous crew had the same problem on this aircraft and also experienced a slow climb and an 1800 pound overburn from fai. Now; if this is in fact true; how could maintenance conclude that this was only a gear indication problem? What really disturbed me was the mechanics on the ramp that met the aircraft were never convinced it was a gear indication problem.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737-400 FLT CREW EXPERIENCED GEAR UNSAFE LIGHT AFTER TKOF. ADVISED BY MAINT IT WAS A REPEAT WRITEUP AND DIAGNOSED AS AN INDICATION PROB; THEY ELECTED TO CONTINUE. POOR CLB PERFORMANCE CONVINCED THEM THERE WAS; IN FACT; A PROB AND A RETURN TO DEP ARPT WAS MADE.

Narrative: AFTER TKOF; R MAIN RED GEAR LIGHT REMAINED ILLUMINATED WITH THE GEAR HANDLE UP. MOVED HANDLE TO OFF; R MAIN RED AND GREEN GEAR LIGHT ILLUMINATED. WE LEVELED OFF TO SET UP FOR A RETURN TO ANC. THE ACFT HANDLED AND SOUNDED LIKE THE GEAR WAS IN THE UP POS AT 4000 FT MSL AND 220 KIAS. THE SAME GEAR INDICATION PROB HAD OCCURRED DURING A PREVIOUS FLT. MAINT CTL CONCLUDED IT WAS THE SAME INDICATION PROB AND TOGETHER WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO ZZZ. WE RESUMED OUR DEP. CLB RATE WAS LOWER THAN NORMAL AND R YAW INCREASED AS AIRSPD INCREASED. LEVELING OFF; A HIGHER THAN NORMAL PWR SETTING WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN UNACCELERATED LEVEL FLT. IT BECAME VERY OBVIOUS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE A GEAR INDICATION PROB. WE CALLED DISPATCH AND RETURNED TO ANC. GEAR LOWERED NORMALLY AND THE LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. AFTER BLOCKING IN; I LEARNED FROM THE MECHS THAT THE PREVIOUS CREW HAD THE SAME PROB ON THIS ACFT AND ALSO EXPERIENCED A SLOW CLB AND AN 1800 LB OVERBURN FROM FAI. NOW; IF THIS IS IN FACT TRUE; HOW COULD MAINT CONCLUDE THAT THIS WAS ONLY A GEAR INDICATION PROB? WHAT REALLY DISTURBED ME WAS THE MECHS ON THE RAMP THAT MET THE ACFT WERE NEVER CONVINCED IT WAS A GEAR INDICATION PROB.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.