Narrative:

Upon selection of landing gear up and within 6 seconds (per QRH); the cas announced a single chime master caution 'outboard antiskid' followed by a red master warning triple chime and 'gear disagree' with the left main indicating a white status. Both cautions were canceled; hydraulic fluid was checked; air speed was verified as increasing and we were climbing at 1800FPM. Routine calls were made and after takeoff checks were completed and I took the radios as the first officer grabbed the QRH. Airspeed was reduced to 200K to stay within gear limits and ATC was advised. At this point all messages had gone away. The QRH was discussed but we did not take any action directed by the QRH [as] that would seem rash. We were gear up and flying without a current problem but this is not to say that the problem had gone away. We would still have to put the gear down to land so we had to make some decisions. Because the aircraft was not in distress; the weather enroute was not a factor; and considering crash fire rescue equipment and other available resources we decided to continue to our destination and land under a declared emergency for a possible gear issue. We briefed the flight attendant; the passengers and each other on what we each would be doing to manage the emergency. I would continue to fly and the first officer would run the QRH items and checklist. Everything went as planned and we landed safely. The emergency was canceled and we taxied to the gate without issues. This aircraft had a history of similar issues with gear disagree and emergency situations. There were four write ups in the aml--including mine--for the same problem over a 45 day period. Each time the aircraft was worked on and [signed off] 'ops checked good'. Obviously this aircraft is not fixed and it continues to put crews in harm's way with possible gear issues. It is obvious by the repeated write ups that this aircraft has a serious issue; serious; that is; to those of us that have to fly it in its continued degraded condition. It is almost as if emergencies are so common place that nobody cares that we work under these conditions. This emergency constituted my second aircraft in 18 hours that was unfit for flight and required ATC assistance and compromised all of our safety to an unacceptable level. This aircraft should not be repeatedly returned to flight status just to see if it will do it again.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ-200 Captain described a declared emergency which was the result of GEAR DISAGREE and OUTBOARD ANTISKID EICAS messages received after takeoff. The report stressed that this was the fourth write-up of this exact problem which had been signed off each time as 'ops good' by maintenance.

Narrative: Upon selection of landing gear up and within 6 seconds (per QRH); the CAS announced a single chime Master Caution 'OUTBOARD ANTISKID' followed by a RED MASTER WARNING TRIPLE CHIME and 'GEAR DISAGREE' with the Left Main indicating a white status. Both cautions were canceled; hydraulic fluid was checked; air speed was verified as increasing and we were climbing at 1800FPM. Routine calls were made and after takeoff checks were completed and I took the radios as the First Officer grabbed the QRH. Airspeed was reduced to 200K to stay within gear limits and ATC was advised. At this point all messages had gone away. The QRH was discussed but we did not take any action directed by the QRH [as] that would seem rash. We were gear up and flying without a current problem but this is not to say that the problem had gone away. We would still have to put the gear down to land so we had to make some decisions. Because the aircraft was not in distress; the weather enroute was not a factor; and considering CFR and other available resources we decided to continue to our destination and land under a declared emergency for a possible gear issue. We briefed the Flight Attendant; the passengers and each other on what we each would be doing to manage the emergency. I would continue to fly and the First Officer would run the QRH items and checklist. Everything went as planned and we landed safely. The emergency was canceled and we taxied to the gate without issues. This aircraft had a history of similar issues with GEAR DISAGREE and emergency situations. There were four write ups in the AML--including mine--for the same problem over a 45 day period. Each time the aircraft was worked on and [signed off] 'ops checked good'. Obviously this aircraft is not fixed and it continues to put crews in harm's way with possible gear issues. It is obvious by the repeated write ups that this aircraft has a serious issue; serious; that is; to those of us that have to fly it in its continued degraded condition. It is almost as if emergencies are so common place that nobody cares that we work under these conditions. This emergency constituted my second aircraft in 18 hours that was unfit for flight and required ATC assistance and compromised all of our safety to an unacceptable level. This aircraft should not be repeatedly returned to flight status just to see if it will do it again.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.