Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Confusion; Situational Awareness
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Aircraft; Procedure
When configuring for landing while on Expressway Visual approach to Runway 31 at LGA; the flaps remained at 20 when flap handle was selected to 25; resulting in the 'Trailing Edge Flaps Disagree' EICAS message. We performed a go around; coordinated with ATC and completed the associated QRH checklist. We found the checklist confusing in regards to the required configuration for landing. Based upon [minimal] fuel available for diversion and considering the runway length at LGA; a decision was made to lower flaps electically to 30 and land LGA. The landing was uneventful. Upon debrief; we agreed that it may have been prudent to consider [the possible performance reduction due to] slow electrical flap retraction speed in the event of the need to perform an engine out missed approach.
The checklist seems to direct you to use 20 flaps for landing. But number 7 on the checklist says to select 'required' flaps. We believed flaps 30 to be safer on this short runway so flaps 30 were used.
The flight crew of an unknown Boeing aircraft performed a go around at LGA when they received a TE FLAP DISAGREE EICAS message. They performed the associated checklist and opted to land with flaps extended to 30 degrees using the alternate electrical flap extension procedure.