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.