Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Time Pressure
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Aircraft; Human Factors
During our approach to land; when I requested flaps 35; at approximately 1;800 MSL; the 'flaps fail' CAS message illuminated. We both acknowledged the fault. Rather than pausing and pulling out the checklist; the pilot not flying pushed the flap reset button. When that didn't fix the error; he matched the flap selector to the flap position of 15 then pushed the flap reset button once again. The fail message extinguished and the flaps were selected to 35; and they moved into the proper position. The landing was uneventful; normal; however company SOP with regard to checklist usage wasn't complied with. This was the third time we had received this failure selecting flaps to 35 out of the previous 4 legs we failed to communicate a proper reaction based upon previous occurrences and familiarity of the abnormal checklist. In the few seconds; 3-5 seconds; where the failure occurred; in a high workload environment; a better course of action would to have been to execute a missed approach; call for the proper checklist; and execute the procedure for a flaps fail CAS message. In the checklist the procedure calls for the following:1. Flap position indicator: Check position 2. Flap handle: Verify in a detent 3. Airspeed: Appropriate speed for configuration 4. Flap reset button: Push If the flaps remain in the failed condition; the checklist moves us to the 'flaps not in the landing position (35)' checklist. Nowhere in the Flaps Failed Checklist does it tell us to take the flap selector to match the condition of the failure and push the flap reset button. If we had followed the specified procedure; it would have forced us to land in a non-normal condition; flaps 15. Contributing factors: First; our communication regarding call for the abnormal checklist was lacking. Second; we went on 'muscle-memory' to resolve the abnormal problem rather than execute a go-around and pull the appropriate checklist. Third; other factors include VMC environment; our position relative to the airport (close-in) final approach; revenue passengers onboard; and a feeling that this is an easy resolution with the flap fail button versus executing a go-around and inconveniencing the passengers. Last; possible checklist oversight; in that if the procedure were it followed as written; we would have been forced to land in a degraded configuration; flaps 15; to a 5;000 FT long runway.
It worth noting the checklist has the potential to be improved with the addition of corrective action of matching selector to actual potion and re-attempt of reset. While in this flight there were not present additional threats of weather; i.e. icing environment contaminated runways or high terrain there is that potential.
CE-680 flight crew reported they deviated from the published procedure in dealing with a flap failure.