Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 182; Flight Crew Type 9459
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft
First officers leg to fly. As PM as I performed the after takeoff checklist the landing gear would not retract. Continued to clear above surrounding terrain. Positioned aircraft to safe altitude; and executed CLR / CRM and QRH's to resolve. All appropriate checklists completed. Key item-- we were unable to communicate with company with clarity. ACARS was our primary means to communicate with company. Unable to establish comm with company either via VHF COMM or ARINC. Aircraft did not have SATCOM. Continued and [advised Company] via ACARS and ATC. Accomplished related checklists; landing performance received. Uneventful landing at ZZZ. Had emergency/CFR equipment standing by for due caution. Overweight landing accomplished.
FO was the PF and CA was the PM. The Inbound flight was delayed therefore; delaying our departure time. All was considered normal ops until pushback. Pushed back from gate. During the pushback; both the CA and I heard a loud clunk from the nose gear area. The CA inquired from the push back crew if they heard the same. The push back crew confirmed the noise and advised that they taxied over an uneven surface. The CA inquired again to make sure that was the case; since from our view point we did not see any uneven surface on the ramp from the gate to the present position. The push back crew reaffirmed that all looked normal including the nose gear assembly. We started our taxi for takeoff. There were no notable steering issues or any other noises during the taxi and takeoff roll. The takeoff roll was normal. Upon rotating and achieving positive rate; the 'Gear Up' call was made. The CA as PM attempted to bring the gear lever from the OFF position to the UP position; but was unable to. The FO as PF continued flying the RNAV SID and called to clean up the flaps on schedule. Once terrain was not an issue; the CA advised ATC of our issue and requested to maintain speed at 240 Knots and an altitude of 10;000 while on LNAV track with the SID departure. With the R CMD Autopilot engaged; I as the PF remained as PF and also communicated with ATC. The CA went through the QRH and followed the checklist for 'Gear Lever will not move Up'. Because of the clunking noise we heard on the ground during pushback and inability to verify the condition of the nose gear; we both agreed that we will not retract the gear through the alternate method provided by the checklist. Bottom line was; we did not want to create an additional problem if the nose gear was damaged for any reason and did not retract properly; possibly not extending normally when needed. We requested to climb to FL190 to have a better clearance from terrain and requested vectors while in VMC conditions. The CA communicated the condition of flight to the FAs and passengers. The CA attempted to establish communication with dispatch via AIRINC; SELCAL and VHF; but was not able to. Dispatch was notified via ACARS of the situation. After multiple attempts to establish communication with Dispatch; we decided that at that point the best course of action was to return. Dispatch was advised and a return to the departure airport will be attempted through ACARS. [ATC was advised] that we had three gear down lights with a disagree message. We requested vectors to the runway. After setting up for the approach; the CA became the PF and the FO became the PM. The PM continued to go through the QRH checklist for 'Gear Disagree' and 'Overweight Landing' until it was completed. The CA reaffirmed the FAs of the situation and plan of action and as well communicated to the passengers on the return and the reason for it. While setting up for the approach the; auto brakes failed to arm. The QRH 'Auto brakes' checklist was completed with the auto brakes set to OFF as per the checklist. ALL abnormal checklists and deferred items were completed prior to landing. Landing performance data was also taken into consideration. The landing was an overweight landing with 32;000Ibs of fuel in the tanks. ZFW was 196;686IBS. A successful Flaps 30 landing was made. The CA slowed the aircraft on the runway to taxi speed prior to engaging nose wheel steering via the tiller. CFR equipment provided a visual ok message; prior to taxing back to the gate. During the landing rollout and taxi back to the gate; the left engine oil pressure read amber between 25-27 psi multiple times and was steady at times. The flight parked at the gate successfully. Further review of the logbook; indicated that the landing gear module was repaired or replaced approx. 4-5 days prior. The CA made the appropriate entries in the logbook reflecting the abnormal occurrences of the flight.
The 757 landing gear failed to retract; so the crew returned to the departure airport. The alternate retraction method was not considered because of an unusual noise heard in the nose gear area during pushback.