Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff the gear switch was selected to the gear up position; and we observed that the left main gear had not retracted and still had an in transit indication with a gear disagree indication; and a proximity system fault displayed. The gear was cycled down and all three gears returned to a gear down/3 green indication. Because of the conditions and light snow contamination on the departure runway and taxiways; the pilot flying and I agreed we should try to raise the landing gear again due to possible contamination on the landing gear proximity system which may have cleared by cycling the gear in the slipstream. The gear handle was moved to the up position again and two of the gear retracted normally; but this time the nose gear displayed an in-transit indication with no movement; accompanied by a disagree and proximity system fault indication. The gear switch was positioned down again and all three gears returned to a gear down/3 green indication and the CAS message and disagree indication cleared itself. At this point we were at 4;000 FT and Departure wanted to know the nature of our problem as they had given us a climb to 16;000 FT and we had asked to remain at 4;000 FT because of a fault with our landing gear. Departure then asked if we were declaring an emergency and I responded not at this time. The pilot flying and I discussed our options and decided that [another airport] would be a more suitable airport for landing than returning to [our departure airport] because of better weather conditions; maintenance; and possibly a better chance of a recovery aircraft. After reviewing the QRH for a disagree; the QRH stated if the gear is put down and disagree message disappears; then land as soon as practical. I informed Departure that we would like to divert; and the Controller again asked for a more detailed description of the nature of our problem. I replied that initially we had a gear fault; but that all three gears were down and green and we were not declaring an emergency. We were told to proceed to the intersection and then the airport. We were then assigned the ILS and landed uneventfully.Upon exiting the runway the Tower asked if we needed any assistance and I replied no. We proceeded to the ramp under our own power and witnessed no further faults with the landing gear system during taxi.Malfunction of the landing gear system was detected by the crew through gear indications; CAS message; and a disagree message. In addition we confirmed non gear movement by audible cues of hearing the gear still in the slipstream when the gear switch was selected to the gear up position. After the event occurred and we arrived at the FBO; I exited the aircraft and performed a visual inspection to see if I could detect any cause visually for the gear not to stow. No defect was found or observed. In my opinion there was nothing we could have done differently during preflight or ground operations that would have prevented the discrepancy with the landing gear; our changed the occurrence of the event.




Synopsis: CL-300 left main landing gear failed to retract properly; after running the QRH procedures; the crew diverted.