B767 flight crew reported landing gear malfunction; a popped circuit breaker; and possible hydraulic system issues during climb. Flight crew returned to departure airport and landed safely.
Synopsis
B767 flight crew reported landing gear malfunction; a popped circuit breaker; and possible hydraulic system issues during climb. Flight crew returned to departure airport and landed safely.
Narrative
I was PF on Aircraft X departing ZZZ to ZZZ1. During the preflight; we discovered multiple writeups regarding the Landing Gear; and upon further investigation with maintenance; we were told that all gear were just replaced and we were the first flight on it. Preflight; pushback; taxi and takeoff were uneventful. During Climbout; we received the Status Message 'LDG Gear Monitor'. I continued flying while the Captain tried to look up any description of this and what it meant for our flight. We looked in the QRH and didn't find any appropriate information regarding this. Shortly after; we saw that the Left Hydraulic Quantity had dropped to 0.75 (all others were 0.98) and display an 'RF'. The quantity appeared to slowly be dropping (lowest seen was 0.73). While investigating; we also found that the 'Stick Nudger' circuit breaker (CB) had popped. We discussed the situation amongst ourselves and Dispatch (limited due to no SATCOM) and decided that we needed to turn back to ZZZ. The reasons for this decision were: 1) The status message; loss of quantity and CB seemed to be too many things happening at once to continue on; 2) It appeared we might have a gear or hydraulic issue on approach; so we wanted plenty of daylight and fuel wherever we landed for potential flyby of tower and dropping of gear and flaps; 3) We were about a third of the way to ZZZ1; and would save the most fuel if we turned back to ZZZ; 4) ZZZ had the most flexibility for maintenance. We dropped the gear about 12-15 miles from the airfield as a conservative measure. All gear appeared to drop normally and we landed and taxied back uneventfully. The cause for the air turn back was...1) The status message; loss of quantity and CB seemed to be too many things happening at once to continue on; 2) It appeared we might have a gear or hydraulic issue on approach; so we wanted plenty of daylight and fuel wherever we landed for potential flyby of tower and dropping of gear and flaps; 3) We were about a third of the way to ZZZ1; and would save the most fuel if we turned back to ZZZ; 4) ZZZ had the most flexibility for maintenance. After landing; maintenance initial look suspected a faulty sensor in the landing gear and an airbubble in the hydraulic lines.Suggestions: Test flight after total gear replacement in the local area. Hopefully the gear was cycled multiple times on the ground by maintenance as well. Having fuel and daylight was our biggest consideration to ensure a safe approach and possible missed approach for any issues. However; talking to Dispatch was difficult via datalink/ACARS when we had to make a quick decision to preserve fuel. SATCOM could have been a good asset to make a quick more coordinated decision between crew and Dispatch.
Second reporter narrative
Scheduled flight was ZZZ-ZZZ1 with clear weather in ZZZ; ZZZ1 and enroute. Upon reviewing the maintenance history for Aircraft X we noted the unusual number of writeups and that all the gear had recently been replaced. Preflight was normal and just prior to push we had maintenance on board to add the second MEL sticker for a late entry MEL for cargo position deferral. In casual conversation with the maintainer we mentioned the extensive gear maintenance writeups and he said we would be the first to fly it since all the gear had been changed out. It seemed odd to me that no test flight had been required. We had an on time pushback and taxied for takeoff from [Runway] XXL. During the climbout we noticed a white status message LDG GEAR MONITOR. Once we leveled off we discussed the status message and that it did not require crew action but it would be a dispatch issue. I prepared an ACARS for Dispatch so they could pass the status message info to ZZZ1 ramp. Given the extensive gear work performed on the AC; we looked at our systems displays to see if any other indications were unusual. The FO looked over the overhead circuit breaker (CB) panel and noticed a uncollared popped CB; I did recall a bit of a snap sound on climbout and as this CB is directly above the Capt seat it seemed to make sense. About this time we also received a magenta RF indication next to the Left hyd quantity which was at .75 while the Center and Left were at .96 and 1.00 respectively. The FO took the radios in addition to flying and I got out of the seat to get a closer look at the CB that was popped and look at the rest of the panel. The popped CB was the stick nudger CB which didn't seem related to any gear issues ( I did find out after the fact that this CB is collared during the gear replacement procedures). We passed on the CB and Hyd RF issues to Dispatch and asked if they could get some information from a tech pilot and/or maintenance to see if there was any relation between the three malfunctions. We also informed Dispatch we were considering returning to ZZZ. As a crew we discussed continuing to ZZZ1 vs a return to ZZZ. Individually the malfunctions and abnormal indications were not significant but as a whole we began to suspect there could be bigger gear issues or hydraulic leaks. Given that this would be the first in air extension of all three replaced gear we felt the prudent choice was to return to ZZZ. Returning to ZZZ afforded us more fuel/time to conduct visual gear passes in daylight should the gear not extend and lock properly. We coordinated a turn back with Center and informed Dispatch we would return to ZZZ. During our return we reviewed the loss L HYD system QRH and ;out of an abundance of caution; the emergency egress checklist. We also briefed that we would slow and configure early and check the status page to see if the slow leak on the Left side HYD changed with configurations. The L hyd quantity was at .73 and remained steady during our normal gear and flap extensions. We also advised Approach control that we would be slowing early for earlier configuration checks. We did not declare an emergency as none of our abnormal indications directed us to QRH procedures. Our use and briefing from the QRH was purely precautionary in anticipation of anything that could degrade further during our arrival and configuration changes. I conducted the landing on XXL in ZZZ and briefed an extra effort for a soft touchdown and gently bringing the nosewheel to the deck. An uneventful landing ensued and we taxied to the gate for a cargo transfer.Cause: Looking at the maintenance performed on the aircraft since our flight it looks like there was a series of indicator; electrical and servicing abnormalities associated with the extensive gear overhaul.Suggestions: I would suggest a look at the test flight requirements for the work performed. It seems unusual to replace all the gear and send the airplane fully loaded on a revenue flight without a functional test flight of the landing gear system.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.