Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Aircraft
After pushing back from the gate the Captain and I noticed a status message that said 'Flap Motor' as I recall. Based on the status message flow sheet we were not required to return to the gate for this message. We were required to depart flaps 20 that morning due to the weight and a Low Level Windshear. Following a successful flaps 20 takeoff the Captain ordered flaps 15 on schedule; but the flaps remained stuck at flaps 20 position with a trailing edge flap caution message on the EICAS. He took the radios and controls while I ran the checklist. Eventually we requested a holding pattern at 3000 feet AGL over the airport; where we completed the QRH procedure for a trailing edge flap emergency. Here is where some confusion comes into this case. With the QRH we were able to match the flaps to the flap handle position. We moved them to flaps 15. It says in the QRH to 'set flaps as required'. What exactly does that mean? Does is mean obtain a safe flap setting for a landing and land as soon as conditions permit or does it mean raise them using alternate means and continue on to destination knowing you will have the rest of the QRH to deal with on the other end. This QRH procedure is sort of confusing in its wording. Based on the fact we obtained a safe landing flap setting we decided to return to ZZZ and not move the flaps anymore. The concern was with the flap motor status message and the QRH procedure that if you got the flaps up you wouldn't be able to get them down again. Unfortunately; this aircraft could not dump fuel so we had to orbit for 3.5 hrs to burn the fuel down to a safe landing weight. At this point we brought up the mechanic and made sure we didn't miss anything on the QRH and asked for his input. We also called dispatch and maintenance. Eventually they and the [Chief Pilot] were in the loop. There were some suggestions on that Satphone call about raising the flaps on the alternate system and going proceeding to destination. We decided as a crew that we did not want to risk the flaps getting stuck up and a no-flap landing with 240 people on the plane. The decision seemed to be acceptable to management and we pushed on with that plan and landed several hours later.Also of note; this aircraft was pretty new. There are no QRHs that seem to match the list of tail numbers for this aircraft. Also of note; the QRH emergency performance tables use Kilos instead of pounds for all weight measurement. Considering all the [other] aircraft use pounds; it was confusing and added room for error on those speed calculations by being unstandardized. Other than that; the landing was fine and we taxied back to the gate. Maintenance tried to fix a plane that seemed to work part of the time and fail part of the time. It took over 24 hrs to come up with a solution to the flap malfunction.Need a better definition of what 'As Necessary' means on the QRH for the flap procedure and digital pubs that match the tail number. Some sort of memo letting pilots know that the tables are in Kilos verses pounds or updated tables that match our operations. The rule on the aircraft was in lbs as was the weight and balance paperwork. Why would we have QRH procedures in Kilos?
Status message TE FLAP SHUTDOWN appeared on taxi out. Ran Status Message checklist; continued normal operation and departed; Flaps 20; Max Thrust. On departure; at first movement of flap handle; EICAS message TRL EDGE FLAPS DISAGREE illuminated. Leveled off and ran QRH. Flaps left at 15 because we were uncertain the flaps would extend for landing given the existing Status Message and the TE Flap Disagree. Called Dispatch; maintenance control and [Chief Pilot] via satcom. Considerations were: FOB (Fuel on Board) was 79000; AC was over MLW (Max Landing Weight); no fuel dump available; questionable capability of flaps to extend later. Decided after discussion between all parties to hold until fuel burned off to get down to max landing weight and land back at ZZZ. A slower; stabilized and safer landing with partial flaps was preferable to the potential of a no-flap landing with passengers aboard. Spoke later with [Flight Operations]; going through QRH again to confirm the status of the incident. Ran performance numbers via section of QRH. Executed Flap 20 landing with no issues. Had CFR equipment standing by during landing and rollout. Need company review of Pre-departure Status Message procedures. Need Maintenance Control to be more responsive when communicating with crews dealing with in-flight incidents or emergencies. Aircraft need more maintenance on the ground to prevent these issues from happening in-flight.
Air carrier flight crew reported flap malfunction after takeoff.