CE750 flight crew reported flap failure and diversion to a suitable airport.
Synopsis
CE750 flight crew reported flap failure and diversion to a suitable airport.
Narrative
Flying from ZZZ1 to ZZZ while approaching the IAF asked for flaps 5; FO (First Officer) after selecting the flaps noticed the FLAPS FAIL message on the EICAS showing also the ambar display on the flap indication; contacted ATC requesting to divert from the approach and vectors to perform checklists; after checklists were done; the issue continued unresolved.We initially requested diversion into ZZZ2; enroute to ZZZ2; and after reaching out to company; we were instructed to fly far southeast as possible;having more than enough fuel; around 10000 lbs; we requested to continue our diversion to ZZZ3; The checklists called a factor for the NO FLAP LANDING condition which made the landing distance required greater than 9000 ft; Enroute to ZZZ3 we were asked by ATC if airplane was priority handling; if not we could expect delays getting into ZZZ3; I decided to request it; but still informing ATC that we were Ok just needed PRIORITY landing; they gave us that and proceeded to land at ZZZ3; no flap; without issues.Upon arriving to tarmac authorities were present; explained to them what happened and gave them my contact information.
Second reporter narrative
I was assigned to operate as Second in Command. Crew arrived at ACFT for flight to ZZZ. ACFT was started with 'huffer' again; cross-bleed start. PIC made sure the engines were on and the APU was off. Only De-ice was performed as there was no precipitation. The previous day 2 de-ice and 2 anti-ice were performed prior to flight cancelled. Taxi and takeoff were normal with no issues. Cruise flight had no issues. Upon approach to ZZZ; the cleared for approach RNAV XX was given. PIC called for 'flaps 5'; immediately upon moving the selector; a master caution light illuminated and tone heard. The amber 'flaps fail' EICAS message was present and the flap indicator was yellow and still indicating zero. (visually confirmed) Master Caution was reset.I stated to PIC that we needed to request priority handling and run through checklist; he concurred. I advised ATC of the flaps fail; requested priority handling; and that we need to be 'put into a box pattern to run the checklist'. I put XXXX in the transponder. Approach advised a heading and to level off at 11k feet. QRH checklist for 'FLAPS FAIL' message was completed. The flaps didn't reset. Crew reviewed the rest of the abnormal procedure for safe landing.The QRH chart was reviewed for calculating landing distances using distance factors given weight; as we were 'tankering' fuel. I stated ZZZ2 was nearest longest runway. PIC ran FMS calculations and determined landing distance with flaps full (IAW the QRH note at chart); the multiplying factor determined over 13k feet was needed based on flight to ZZZ2 distance; fuel at landing; temperature; pressure; and winds (per FMS). PIC stated we were going to ZZZ2. I notified ATC of need to divert; they assigned initial heading for ZZZ2. While enroute to ZZZ2 ATC asked if we still were requesting priority handling and if we needed any services. PIC said to tell them no (ACFT was in cruise). I advised ATC that procedures were complete and we were currently not a prioirity aircraft at cruise. ATC issued us a new 'squawk' code. PIC and I discussed that 'priority' would apply for a descent and landing and would have to request priority handling again. Company advised crew not to go to ZZZ2; but to fly 'southeast'. The purpose appeared to get aircraft to warmer weather and to burn fuel to reduce weight for safer; shorter; slower landing. Further flight planning looked at airports with at least 12k foot runways; one airport had 12k foot runways; but weight was too high. Another airport's long runway was closed by NOTAM. ZZZ4 was determined to be furthest south with long runway meeting needs and not closed. Fuel at landing would have been 3;900 pounds (based on FMS calculations). Company asked why we were going to ZZZ4. A message was sent showing calculations and need for 12k foot runway for safety. (A 10k foot runway would only leave a few hundred feet for error or overrun of calculated distances.) The directive was then issued to use ZZZ3 for a 12k foot runway with more fuel burn occurring enroute; slower approach speed; thus; less landing distance. PIC and SIC used FMS to calculate the use of ZZZ3. A review of ZZZ3 showed two runways long enough. The FMS calculations showed landing distance required at 24;779# at landing of 8559 with plenty of reserve for go-around (reserve fuel numbers not recorded). PIC directed SIC to coordinate with ATC. SIC advised ATC that company directed ACFT to continue to ZZZ3 for these purposes. ATC advised there was a 4-hour delay into ZZZ3 (known by crew) and that they would have to put us into a hold and divert us back to ZZZ4; or; we could 'request priority handling and go direct'. We got the hint. Given the use of QRH; flight control degradation for landing (flaps) and required fuel decrease needed for safe landing; I confirmed with PIC to request prioirity. Priority handling was requested with ATC; ZZZ3 direct was issued by ATC. FMS programming for approach with manually input of VREF; was completed.Company was notified by PIC that ZZZ3 as intended point of landing. ATC continuously offered crew for any 'services required' in flight; and at landing. All were denied as the landing would just be a fast landing on long runway. Rest of flight was uneventful. Landing at ZZZ3 was on XXL; and ACFT was slowed in time for turn off onto taxiway 1 without incident. It is believed that heavy wet; freezing snowconditions led to multiple applications of anti-ice/de-ice on ACFT which fouled sensors enough to cause the flaps to fail at zero.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.