Narrative:

We were on vectors for a visual approach to XXX. Upon selection of flaps 20 degrees, we received a 'flap fail' message. We notified approach, and they said, 'climb to 3000 ft,' and eventually turned us eastbound. We accomplished the flight manual procedures, notified company and flight attendant and considered YYY as diversion, since we were closest to it. My primary consideration now was to burn off excess fuel, so as to have as low a landing weight as possible. After plugging ZZZ into the FMS, I saw it would give me the landing weight I wanted. I then exercised my emergency authority/authorized, and diverted to ZZZ for the following reasons. 1) it provided the fuel burn-off I wanted. 2) approach was very busy, and I did not want to take delaying vectors or hold in this environment. 3) fear of fighter intercept. 4) the passenger would have more options in ZZZ for their inconvenience. 5) ZZZ is a company maintenance base. Throughout this event, I struggled with the term 'land at nearest suitable airport.' although YYY (and abc) were both 'nearer,' I felt at my current weight they were not suitable. Rather than receive delaying vectors or a hold in a busy, congested ATC environment, I believed a straight course to ZZZ would allow us to fuel burn-off and a decreased workload environment. An uneventful landing was made in ZZZ. Supplemental information from acn 631417: captain pointed out the flight manual's concern was a high approach speed due to less than approach flaps, potential structural nose gear damage/failure. Therefore, the captain wanted to land as light as possible. I strongly agree with the decision to divert to ZZZ as the 'nearest suitable' airport, as landing light as possible given the gear concerns was the prudent thing to do.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CL65 CREW HAS A FLAP FAIL MESSAGE WHEN LNDG AT XXX THEY DIVERTED TO THE MOST SUITABLE ARPT, ZZZ.

Narrative: WE WERE ON VECTORS FOR A VISUAL APCH TO XXX. UPON SELECTION OF FLAPS 20 DEGS, WE RECEIVED A 'FLAP FAIL' MESSAGE. WE NOTIFIED APCH, AND THEY SAID, 'CLB TO 3000 FT,' AND EVENTUALLY TURNED US EBOUND. WE ACCOMPLISHED THE FLT MANUAL PROCS, NOTIFIED COMPANY AND FLT ATTENDANT AND CONSIDERED YYY AS DIVERSION, SINCE WE WERE CLOSEST TO IT. MY PRIMARY CONSIDERATION NOW WAS TO BURN OFF EXCESS FUEL, SO AS TO HAVE AS LOW A LNDG WT AS POSSIBLE. AFTER PLUGGING ZZZ INTO THE FMS, I SAW IT WOULD GIVE ME THE LNDG WT I WANTED. I THEN EXERCISED MY EMER AUTH, AND DIVERTED TO ZZZ FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. 1) IT PROVIDED THE FUEL BURN-OFF I WANTED. 2) APCH WAS VERY BUSY, AND I DID NOT WANT TO TAKE DELAYING VECTORS OR HOLD IN THIS ENVIRONMENT. 3) FEAR OF FIGHTER INTERCEPT. 4) THE PAX WOULD HAVE MORE OPTIONS IN ZZZ FOR THEIR INCONVENIENCE. 5) ZZZ IS A COMPANY MAINT BASE. THROUGHOUT THIS EVENT, I STRUGGLED WITH THE TERM 'LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT.' ALTHOUGH YYY (AND ABC) WERE BOTH 'NEARER,' I FELT AT MY CURRENT WT THEY WERE NOT SUITABLE. RATHER THAN RECEIVE DELAYING VECTORS OR A HOLD IN A BUSY, CONGESTED ATC ENVIRONMENT, I BELIEVED A STRAIGHT COURSE TO ZZZ WOULD ALLOW US TO FUEL BURN-OFF AND A DECREASED WORKLOAD ENVIRONMENT. AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG WAS MADE IN ZZZ. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 631417: CAPT POINTED OUT THE FLT MANUAL'S CONCERN WAS A HIGH APCH SPD DUE TO LESS THAN APCH FLAPS, POTENTIAL STRUCTURAL NOSE GEAR DAMAGE/FAILURE. THEREFORE, THE CAPT WANTED TO LAND AS LIGHT AS POSSIBLE. I STRONGLY AGREE WITH THE DECISION TO DIVERT TO ZZZ AS THE 'NEAREST SUITABLE' ARPT, AS LNDG LIGHT AS POSSIBLE GIVEN THE GEAR CONCERNS WAS THE PRUDENT THING TO DO.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.