GEAR DOWN PAX FLT OPERATED IN VIOLATION OF FAR 121 PT 628; FAR 21 PT 197-199.

Narrative

ON A SCHEDULED TRIP PAIRING WHICH LANDED IN SAIPAN AND CONTINUED TO GUAM WE HAD; PRIOR TO LNDG AT SAIPAN; A NOSE GEAR WHICH FAILED TO EXTEND. WE CYCLED THE GEAR BACK UP AND THEN DOWN A SECOND TIME. THE GEAR EXTENDED NORMALLY AND WE LANDED WITHOUT DELAY ON INCIDENT. THE SIT WAS EXPLAINED TO MAINT. THE COURSE OF ACTION WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE LINE MECH; THE MAINT SUPVR; AND MAINT CTL FOR THE AIRLINE. I WAS UNCERTAIN WHETHER I HAD A 'PROB' OR WHETHER THE 'PROB' WAS FIXED BY ITSELF AND NO FURTHER ACTION WAS NEEDED; SO I DID NOT INITIALLY MAKE A LOGBOOK WRITE-UP. THE MECHS AT ALL 3 LEVELS (LINE MECH; SUPVR; AND MAINT CTL) RECOMMENDED THAT I FLY TO GUAM WITHOUT A WRITE-UP. I WAS ASSURED THAT A FULL CHK COULD BE MADE AT GUAM TO PRECLUDE ANY FUTURE PROBS. IN SAIPAN; A THOROUGH VISUAL CHK WAS MADE AND THE MECH'S FELT NO REOCCURRENCE WOULD TAKE PLACE. I WAS NOT FULLY SATISFIED AND BELIEVED THE PROB COULD REOCCUR. A FULL GEAR SWING; WHICH WOULD REMOVE ANY DOUBT; COULD NOT BE DONE IN SAIPAN; BUT COULD BE DONE IN GUAM. I ELECTED TO FLY TO GUAM WITHOUT RETRACTING THE GEAR SO A FULL GEAR SWING COULD BE DONE BEFORE THE NEXT FLT WHERE THE GEAR WAS RETRACTED. THE FLT WITH GEAR DOWN WAS ONLY 111 NM AND DID NOT REPRESENT A SAFETY THREAT. HOWEVER I LATER WONDERED WHETHER I SHOULD HAVE DONE IT WITH PAX ON BOARD OR WHETHER I SHOULD HAVE DONE A MAINT FERRY FLT. THE MECHS MAY HAVE OVERLY INFLUENCED ME TO GO WHEN A BETTER 'PROC' MIGHT HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. NEXT TIME I WILL TRY TO IDENT MORE OPTIONS AND FIND THE BEST ONE.