Narrative:

On approach to localizer 26 at pns; flaps failed at 30 degrees. We did a missed approach in order to perform QRH for flaps failed. During the mins required to complete the QRH; the WX went down at pns. The wind was out of the east at 10 KTS gusting to 15 KTS. The ceiling was too low to get in on the VOR or GPS. I asked tower and he said no one was getting in on the VOR. The tailwind was too strong to land on runway 26. We began to divert to ZZZ. The first officer called dispatch while I talked with ATC. We told dispatch we were diverting to ZZZ. Dispatch said no; we were to proceed to ZZZ2. We informed ATC that company wanted us to proceed to ZZZ2 and set course to ZZZ2. Landing in ZZZ2 was uneventful. When dispatch told us not to proceed to ZZZ and proceed to ZZZ2; we could only believe that for some reason dispatch found ZZZ to not be a suitable airport for the diversion. So we proceeded to ZZZ2 as instructed by dispatch. We had no idea there was a problem until today when I got a phone call from the office of flight standards. I filed this report shortly after that phone call. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the QRH calls for a landing at the nearest suitable airport; but the dispatcher wanted them to go to a more distant airport. They assumed the dispatcher was recommending the more distant airport because of operational reasons; but they did not press the dispatcher for details. The incident is under company flight standards review; and the reporter now feels the dispatcher directed them to a more distant airport for maintenance considerations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CRJ-200 FLT CREW EXPERIENCED FLAP FAILURE AT 30 DEG. DISPATCH ASKED THEM TO DIVERT TO A MORE DISTANT STATION THAN NEAREST SUITABLE; APPARENTLY FOR MAINTENANCE REASONS.

Narrative: ON APCH TO LOC 26 AT PNS; FLAPS FAILED AT 30 DEGS. WE DID A MISSED APCH IN ORDER TO PERFORM QRH FOR FLAPS FAILED. DURING THE MINS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE QRH; THE WX WENT DOWN AT PNS. THE WIND WAS OUT OF THE E AT 10 KTS GUSTING TO 15 KTS. THE CEILING WAS TOO LOW TO GET IN ON THE VOR OR GPS. I ASKED TWR AND HE SAID NO ONE WAS GETTING IN ON THE VOR. THE TAILWIND WAS TOO STRONG TO LAND ON RWY 26. WE BEGAN TO DIVERT TO ZZZ. THE FO CALLED DISPATCH WHILE I TALKED WITH ATC. WE TOLD DISPATCH WE WERE DIVERTING TO ZZZ. DISPATCH SAID NO; WE WERE TO PROCEED TO ZZZ2. WE INFORMED ATC THAT COMPANY WANTED US TO PROCEED TO ZZZ2 AND SET COURSE TO ZZZ2. LNDG IN ZZZ2 WAS UNEVENTFUL. WHEN DISPATCH TOLD US NOT TO PROCEED TO ZZZ AND PROCEED TO ZZZ2; WE COULD ONLY BELIEVE THAT FOR SOME REASON DISPATCH FOUND ZZZ TO NOT BE A SUITABLE ARPT FOR THE DIVERSION. SO WE PROCEEDED TO ZZZ2 AS INSTRUCTED BY DISPATCH. WE HAD NO IDEA THERE WAS A PROB UNTIL TODAY WHEN I GOT A PHONE CALL FROM THE OFFICE OF FLT STANDARDS. I FILED THIS RPT SHORTLY AFTER THAT PHONE CALL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE REPORTER STATED THE QRH CALLS FOR A LANDING AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE AIRPORT; BUT THE DISPATCHER WANTED THEM TO GO TO A MORE DISTANT AIRPORT. THEY ASSUMED THE DISPATCHER WAS RECOMMENDING THE MORE DISTANT AIRPORT BECAUSE OF OPERATIONAL REASONS; BUT THEY DID NOT PRESS THE DISPATCHER FOR DETAILS. THE INCIDENT IS UNDER COMPANY FLIGHT STANDARDS REVIEW; AND THE REPORTER NOW FEELS THE DISPATCHER DIRECTED THEM TO A MORE DISTANT AIRPORT FOR MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.