Narrative:

The flight was normal and uneventful until the landing gear was selected down in preparation for landing; when the landing gear relay circuit breaker on the pilot's right sub-panel popped. The breaker popped immediately upon selecting the gear control down; the gear motor was not heard; and the gear was visually confirmed to appear in the fully up position. A missed approach was executed; without moving the landing gear handle; center was advised of our situation and they provided delay vectors around the area. Controls were transferred to the first officer; in anticipation of performing a manual gear extension and freeing me up to communicate with the company. After performing the 'failure of the landing gear to extend normally' checklist I contacted our dispatcher via the station who did an excellent job of relaying information. Dispatch solicited our opinion on where to land the aircraft considering the possibility of landing without a safe gear; and they indicated that if we were comfortable with it they believe ZZZ would be the safest. The first officer and I had discussed that ZZZ has much better crash fire rescue capabilities; and we requested a fuel burn from dispatch back to ZZZ. At that time we had 2200 lbs of fuel on board and with the burn to ZZZ with the landing gear up we would arrive with approximately 2 hours of fuel on board giving us ample opportunity to perform checklists and work through any complications that might arise after the manual extension. We also considered the fact that if we had an unsuccessful manual gear extension here we would likely be committed to land; with strong westerly winds aloft flying to ZZZ would likely not be possible with the drag of a partially extended gear. We had the information relayed to dispatch that we would be comfortable with an air turn back to ZZZ; and believed it to be the safest course of action which was followed with the pen and ink info from dispatch for the divert. We notified ATC of our intentions and as a precaution we declared an emergency. Although we believed the landing gear to be fully retracted we did not exceed 180 kts enroute back to ZZZ. After back in cruise flight we were able to communicate directly with dispatch and verified information that was relayed through the station. Approximately 20 miles from ZZZ the manual gear extension was successfully performed and resulted in three green lights with no warnings. A safe flaps 35 deg [flap] landing was performed and the flight taxied to the gate under our own power. The aircraft was written up for the landing gear discrepancy and an unsuccessful GPWS 'too low gear' function discovered during the execution of the checklist. With two beechcraft 1900 gear collapses in recent history and the emphasis on landing gear malfunctions over the past year; we believe that planning for the worst case scenario and landing at the airport with the facilities best equipped to handle an emergency was the safest course of action. The new QRH checklists for gear malfunctions worked well and left us with all the information to aid in decision making. The communications between all parties and our flight was clear and smooth.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE1900 Captain experiences the failure of the landing gear to extend during approach. After consultation with Dispatch the decision is made to return to the departure airport; with its long runways and better ARFF capabilities. After manual gear extension an uneventful landing ensues.

Narrative: The flight was normal and uneventful until the landing gear was selected down in preparation for landing; when the landing gear relay circuit breaker on the pilot's right sub-panel popped. The breaker popped immediately upon selecting the gear control down; the gear motor was not heard; and the gear was visually confirmed to appear in the fully up position. A missed approach was executed; without moving the landing gear handle; Center was advised of our situation and they provided delay vectors around the area. Controls were transferred to the First Officer; in anticipation of performing a manual gear extension and freeing me up to communicate with the company. After performing the 'Failure of the Landing Gear to Extend Normally' checklist I contacted our Dispatcher via the station who did an excellent job of relaying information. Dispatch solicited our opinion on where to land the aircraft considering the possibility of landing without a safe gear; and they indicated that if we were comfortable with it they believe ZZZ would be the safest. The First Officer and I had discussed that ZZZ has much better crash fire rescue capabilities; and we requested a fuel burn from dispatch back to ZZZ. At that time we had 2200 lbs of fuel on board and with the burn to ZZZ with the landing gear up we would arrive with approximately 2 hours of fuel on board giving us ample opportunity to perform checklists and work through any complications that might arise after the manual extension. We also considered the fact that if we had an unsuccessful manual gear extension here we would likely be committed to land; with strong westerly winds aloft flying to ZZZ would likely not be possible with the drag of a partially extended gear. We had the information relayed to dispatch that we would be comfortable with an air turn back to ZZZ; and believed it to be the safest course of action which was followed with the pen and ink info from dispatch for the divert. We notified ATC of our intentions and as a precaution we declared an emergency. Although we believed the landing gear to be fully retracted we did not exceed 180 kts enroute back to ZZZ. After back in cruise flight we were able to communicate directly with Dispatch and verified information that was relayed through the station. Approximately 20 miles from ZZZ the manual gear extension was successfully performed and resulted in three green lights with no warnings. A safe flaps 35 deg [flap] landing was performed and the flight taxied to the gate under our own power. The aircraft was written up for the landing gear discrepancy and an unsuccessful GPWS 'too low gear' function discovered during the execution of the checklist. With two Beechcraft 1900 gear collapses in recent history and the emphasis on landing gear malfunctions over the past year; we believe that planning for the worst case scenario and landing at the airport with the facilities best equipped to handle an emergency was the safest course of action. The new QRH checklists for gear malfunctions worked well and left us with all the information to aid in decision making. The communications between all parties and our flight was clear and smooth.

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.