Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
This report is to replace the first report previously submitted. During initial climb; the FO (First Officer) called for gear up and I selected the gear up lever. We received a NOSE GEAR DOOR warning along with a GEAR DISAGREE message; a WOW INPUT caution message; and a WOW OUTPUT FAIL status message. I informed ZZZ Departure that we need to stay in the ZZZ area and we may be returning to the field. We continued the climb sequence and engaged the autopilot. I delegated duties by telling the FO that he will continue flying and I'll be running the QRH. He suggested that he could also take the radios and I agreed and said that he had control and the radios. At this point; ATC had assigned us a northbound heading and to maintain 10;000 ft. I found the appropriate QRH procedure and read aloud the first which stated to 'Not exceed 200 KIAS.' I bugged 200 kts for the speed. While running the QRH procedure the conditions were turbulent from the gusty and shifting winds in the area. I looked up at the PFD at one point as I continued through the QRH procedure and saw the speed deteriorating below the speed bug. I announced 'speed' and the FO acknowledged and began correcting. Shortly after correcting with power we received a brief stick shaker. I called 'Upset' and the FO recovered as appropriate. The airspeed returned to a safe speed and he corrected back to our assigned altitude of 10;000 ft.; only losing 200 ft. during the recovery. He called for autopilot and after that was reengaged we continued with our QRH procedure and prepared for our return to field as a [priority handling] aircraft due to the landing gear issue. Since we recognized the slowing airspeed and the turbulent conditions likely triggered the stick shaker I do not feel the safety of the flight was compromised.The cause of this event was due to the saturation of the crew due to the high volume of elements that were occurring all at once. The delegation of duties as per the PIC (Pilot In Command) had the Captain running the QRH and the FO flying the aircraft during the turbulent conditions.  While we were recognizing the warning messages and the need to respond to them; I also recognized that we were climbing towards the mountains and so we needed to communicate our intentions with ATC so that we stayed in the area. Because of terrain and other aircraft such as arrivals to the field ATC turned us North and kept us at 10;000 ft. In addition; the QRH required us to maintain at or below 200 kts airspeed. All of these elements occurring simultaneously required quick action of the Pilot Flying (FO) and myself in terms of managing the flight control panel and communicating with ATC. The large power reduction required to level off; the QRH requirement to maintain below 200 kts; as well as the added drag of the nose gear being down were the key contributing factors to the deteriorating airspeed. Since we recognized the slowing airspeed prior to the stick shaker and corrections were being implemented I do not feel the safety of the flight was compromised. Once recognizing the turbulent conditions requesting a climb to a higher altitudes may have provided a more smooth environment for managing the landing gear issue and the return to field.To avoid a recurrence of this event; my suggestion is to that the aircraft be stable on speed and altitude prior to continuing with the QRH. However; in this case; I knew that airspeed was a consideration since we were flying with the nose gear down. The QRH provided us with the 200 kt limitation. Once that speed was bugged; ensuring we were stable at that speed before continuing would have been prudent.
After calling for GEAR UP; we received a warning message NOSE GEAR DOOR; GEAR DISAGREE; a caution message WOW INPUT; and status message WOW OUTPUT FAIL. While the Captain ran the QRH; I continued to fly the airplane and took over the radios. We informed ATC that we required vectors and to stay in the area. I asked Captain which speed we should maintain and he initially said 210 before correcting with 200 as per the QRH. We leveled off at altitude and I reduced power to a typical power setting to keep airplane below speed detailed in the QRH. At this point we were in moderate turbulence with the winds gusting and shifting around causing the airspeed indicator to bounce all over the place. As ATC vectored us around; the airspeed dropped suddenly; accelerated by the fact that the gear remained down adding extra drag. In the process of communicating with ATC and inputting new information; the airspeed started dropping outside the bug; accelerated by the fact that the gear remained down adding extra drag. Captain called airspeed. I added power but got a momentary stick shaker as engines were spooling up. Captain called upset; I assumed manual control of the airplane; pitched down and added power. We lost 200-300 ft. during the recovery; recovered airspeed and altitude; and reengaged autopilot. We continued with the emergency QRH procedures for the nose gear and came back to land. Safety of flight was never compromised.Dealing with the warning and caution messages from the gear issues; communicating with ATC and inputting new data all at once; monitoring of the airspeed dropped for a few seconds. With the gusty winds; the trend vector was jumping up and down; showing increases followed by immediate decreases. The QRH specified keeping airspeed below 200 and following an increase trend vector; I reduced the power. ATC then gave new instructions which led to the momentary lapse in monitoring airspeed. Because of terrain and other aircraft such as arrivals to the field ATC turned us North and kept us at 10;000 ft. All of these elements occurring simultaneously required quick action. The large power reduction required to level off as well as maintain below 200 kts as per the QRH and the extra added drag from the gear remaining down were the key contributing factors to the deteriorating airspeed. Better anticipate additional power requirements with gear remaining down. Once speed was bugged; better monitoring of the trend vector. Telling ATC to standby while letting airspeed stabilize would have been prudent.
Flight Crew reported an air turn back was complicated by turbulence that affected airspeed and the ability to hold altitude. The landing gear systems including weight on wheels sensing caused other systems failures.