Why is verbal coordination sometimes unnecessary for certain diversions?

The rationale behind the assertion that verbal coordination is sometimes unnecessary for certain diversions relates primarily to the context of air traffic management and safety. When a diversion does not conflict with other traffic, it may not require verbal coordination because there is no potential for disruption or unsafe situations arising from the change in flight path.

In these scenarios, if the intended diversion route is clear of other aircraft, it allows pilots to execute the necessary change without needing to communicate their intentions verbally to air traffic control or other nearby aircraft. This enables more efficient operations and reduces the workload for both pilots and air traffic controllers, enhancing overall safety by streamlining processes where appropriate.

In contrast, other choices involve conditions where coordination would typically be necessary. For instance, diverting at any time may still require communication for safety and situational awareness purposes. Similarly, insufficient traffic does not inherently negate the need for coordination if there are procedural requirements still in place. Lastly, while visual flight rules allow pilots to navigate with more flexibility, they still necessitate awareness of other aircraft and the overall traffic landscape, which usually means some form of communication is still essential.