Flight Crew Last 90 Days 260; Flight Crew Total 18501; Flight Crew Type 7858
Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
The aircraft had a recent history of a trailing edge flap disagreement. We were on final approach; lowered the landing gear and selected flaps 25 when the trailing edge light and associated TE FLAP DISAGREE EICAS message illuminated. After initially deciding to run the checklist while continuing the approach; it quickly became apparent as we approached 1;000 FT that a go-around was a safer course of action. We accomplished a go-around and notified ATC.Once level at 4;000 FT I left the flaps at 20; gave the aircraft to the First Officer; and accomplished the abnormal checklist from the QRH with the Relief First Officer. I then noticed the note in the procedure advising to leave the flaps in the selected position. We had reverted to the normal go around profile and had moved the flap handle to 20. Because of this; the QRH procedure was a bit confusing. We no longer had the TRAILING EDGE light or the EICAS message because both the flap lever and flap position were at 20. We configured the aircraft per the QRH procedure for a flaps 20 approach and landing. We checked the Abnormal Landing Distance Table and the runway length required was not a problem; but we requested 10; a longer runway. We did not declare an emergency. I briefed the Lead Flight Attendant to advise her of the aircraft condition and an expected normal landing in 10 minutes. I made a passenger announcement advising the same. I then resumed flying the aircraft and performed an uneventful approach and landing. After landing; we left the flaps at position 20; and stayed on the aircraft 25 minutes to brief Maintenance personnel at the gate to ensure a proper write-up was entered in the maintenance system.
TE Flap Disagree Checklist was performed to conclusion with a flaps 20 final landing configuration.After completing the checklist and a brief discussion; the Captain and First Officer again switch roles with the Captain now flying the approach. Landing was uneventful and the aircraft taxied to the gate.Of note: Normal go-around procedures conflict somewhat with TE Flap Disagree Checklist in that once the flaps are positioned to 20 on the go-around the TE Flap Disagree message goes away. However; once you run the checklist it states not to move the flap handle. Additionally the checklist becomes confusing because the light is now OUT vice ON. However; the end result would have been the same in that both possible branches of the checklist (light ON or light OFF) would have led to the same resulting configuration in this situation. Also; flying with the flap handle at position 25 with the landing gear up on a go-around would have led to a loud configuration warning.
A B767-300 EICAS alerted TE FLAP DISAGREE when flaps 20 were selected on final. Unable to complete the QRH; a go-around was executed; flaps 20 mistakenly selected and the QRH then completed for a normal landing. The Alert ceased with flaps 20 selection.