Narrative:

After lift-off; the landing gear was selected up; the main gear came up normally; but the nose gear remained down. About 6 seconds later; a gear disagree warning message was posted on the EICAS. We climbed to 5000 ft and leveled off. ATC was advised that we had a problem with the nose gear and needed to run the checklist. The gear-up disagree QRH procedure was performed; and the gear was extended with the manual extension handle. We declared an emergency with ATC and requested priority handling and asked to hold. At that time we were over our maximum landing weight limitation and needed to burn off fuel to meet landing weight. We notified the company and advised our maintenance controller of the problem and told him we would burn the fuel off. The maintenance controller suggested we were ok to land overweight; as long as we touch down with a descent rate of less than 350 FPM. I saw no reason to disregard a limitation. There was no immediate threat to safety that required us to land immediately. We held for about 40 mins prior to commencing the approach. Crash fire rescue equipment was standing by just in case we had any problems. We landed normally. Upon arriving at the gate; a mechanic met the plane and inspected the gear. There was nothing binding the gear; and he pinned the gear. The dispatch release was amended for the diversion and the discrepancy was logged in the maintenance log. I believe safety would have been compromised if we chose to land sooner and land overweight. We are taught to operate the aircraft within its limitations unless a dire emergency requires us to operate outside of the limits. There was no dire emergency. The suggestion by the maintenance controller may not have been in the interest of safety. This type of suggestion may lead other crews to disregard a limitation needlessly and compromise safety.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ200 FLT CREW REPORTS NOSE GEAR FAILED TO RETRACT AFTER TKOF. AFTER COMPLYING WITH CHECKLIST PROCEDURES AND BURNING OFF EXCESS FUEL AN UNEVENTFUL LANDING ENSUES.

Narrative: AFTER LIFT-OFF; THE LNDG GEAR WAS SELECTED UP; THE MAIN GEAR CAME UP NORMALLY; BUT THE NOSE GEAR REMAINED DOWN. ABOUT 6 SECONDS LATER; A GEAR DISAGREE WARNING MESSAGE WAS POSTED ON THE EICAS. WE CLBED TO 5000 FT AND LEVELED OFF. ATC WAS ADVISED THAT WE HAD A PROB WITH THE NOSE GEAR AND NEEDED TO RUN THE CHKLIST. THE GEAR-UP DISAGREE QRH PROC WAS PERFORMED; AND THE GEAR WAS EXTENDED WITH THE MANUAL EXTENSION HANDLE. WE DECLARED AN EMER WITH ATC AND REQUESTED PRIORITY HANDLING AND ASKED TO HOLD. AT THAT TIME WE WERE OVER OUR MAX LNDG WT LIMITATION AND NEEDED TO BURN OFF FUEL TO MEET LNDG WT. WE NOTIFIED THE COMPANY AND ADVISED OUR MAINT CTLR OF THE PROB AND TOLD HIM WE WOULD BURN THE FUEL OFF. THE MAINT CTLR SUGGESTED WE WERE OK TO LAND OVERWT; AS LONG AS WE TOUCH DOWN WITH A DSCNT RATE OF LESS THAN 350 FPM. I SAW NO REASON TO DISREGARD A LIMITATION. THERE WAS NO IMMEDIATE THREAT TO SAFETY THAT REQUIRED US TO LAND IMMEDIATELY. WE HELD FOR ABOUT 40 MINS PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE APCH. CFR WAS STANDING BY JUST IN CASE WE HAD ANY PROBS. WE LANDED NORMALLY. UPON ARRIVING AT THE GATE; A MECH MET THE PLANE AND INSPECTED THE GEAR. THERE WAS NOTHING BINDING THE GEAR; AND HE PINNED THE GEAR. THE DISPATCH RELEASE WAS AMENDED FOR THE DIVERSION AND THE DISCREPANCY WAS LOGGED IN THE MAINT LOG. I BELIEVE SAFETY WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPROMISED IF WE CHOSE TO LAND SOONER AND LAND OVERWT. WE ARE TAUGHT TO OPERATE THE ACFT WITHIN ITS LIMITATIONS UNLESS A DIRE EMER REQUIRES US TO OPERATE OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS. THERE WAS NO DIRE EMER. THE SUGGESTION BY THE MAINT CTLR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY. THIS TYPE OF SUGGESTION MAY LEAD OTHER CREWS TO DISREGARD A LIMITATION NEEDLESSLY AND COMPROMISE SAFETY.

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.