CRJ200 DIVERTED TO NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT WHEN A 'FLAP FAIL' CAUTION MESSAGE APPEARED. QRH PROCEDURE DID NOT STIPULATE THAT A DIVERSION WAS NECESSARY.

Narrative

WHILE CRUISING AT FL330 WE RECEIVED A FLAP FAIL CAUTION MESSAGE. WE PERFORMED THE FLAP FAIL QRH PROC. THE FLAPS WERE CONFIRMED AT 0 DEGS. THE FLAP FAIL QRH PROC ALLOWED US TO CONTINUE ON OUR WAY AND NOT LAND AT NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT. WE WERE WITHIN RANGE OF ZZZ AND ADVISED DISPATCH AND MAINT OF THE DISCREPANCY. BEING A FIRST EVENT FLAP FAILURE WE ALL DECIDED THAT WE COULD SAFELY CONTINUE TO ZZZZ AND LAND. DISPATCH GAVE US RWY LNDG DISTANCE FOR A NO FLAP LNDG IN ZZZZ. DISPATCH WAS TOLD WE WOULD BE DECLARING AN EMER WHEN WE GOT ON WITH CTR TO HAVE CFR STANDING BY. A FEW MINS LATER WE WERE CONTACTED BY DISPATCH. OUR DISPATCHER TOLD US A CHIEF PLT SAID WE NEEDED TO LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT PER SOME MEMO FROM THE FAA; CONTRARY TO THE QRH PROC. WE BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AND AGREED ZZZ WAS STILL WITHIN THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT CRITERIA. WE WERE AT FL330. WE DECLARED AN EMER WITH ATC AND ADVISED WE NEEDED TO DIVERT TO ZZZ AND WOULD BE LNDG WITH FLAPS AT 0. WE ASKED FOR A DIRECT TURN AND LOWER ALT. WE CALCULATED OUR LNDG WT AND WE NEEDED TO BURN SOME FUEL OFF TO LAND UNDER MAX LNDG WT. ATC VECTORED US AROUND TFC AND GOT US ON AN ARR CORRIDOR TO ZZZ. WE SET UP FOR A LNDG AND HAD ABOUT A 12 MI FINAL; CFR WAS STANDING BY. WE LANDED UNEVENTFULLY BELOW MAX LNDG WT. CFR FOLLOWED US DOWN THE RWY AND STAYED CLR. AFTER EXITING THE RWY WE STOPPED AND MONITORED BRAKE TEMPS. THEY NEVER ROSE ABOVE AN INDEX OF 4 IN THE GREEN. CFR WAS ADVISED AND WE TAXIED TO THE GATE. AFTER DEPLANING THE PAX AND WRITING UP THE DISCREPANCY; I CALLED MY DISPATCHER. I AMENDED THE RELEASE AND WE DISCUSSED THE NEED TO LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT. MY DISPATCHER AND I BOTH REVIEWED THE QRH AND CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD AT FLAPS 0 WE DO NOT HAVE TO LAND AT THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT. I WAS LED TO BELIEVE THE CHIEF PLT; WHO HAS OPERATIONAL CTL; WAS REFERRING TO A MEMO FROM THE FAA THAT REQUIRED US TO DIVERT. APPARENTLY THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION; AS THE MEMO WAS RELATING TO A DIFFERENT ACFT SYS OTHER THAN THE FLAP FAILURE. WITH ALL THE NEW FLAP FAILURE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE PROCS; I THINK THE MGRS WITH OPERATIONAL CTL WERE CONFUSED AND CONCERNED ABOUT THE MEMO AFFECTING US WHILE PROCEEDING ON WITH THE FLAP FAILURE. I DO NOT BELIEVE WE VIOLATED ANY FAR'S; COMPANY POLICES AND PROCS. AS A PRECAUTIONARY BY THE COMPANY; I BELIEVE WE NEEDLESSLY DIVERTED TO THE NEAREST SUITABLE ARPT AS DIRECTED; RATHER THAN CONTINUE TO OUR DEST; WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE QRH PROC.