Narrative:

I released a flight with 1CH anti skid inoperative. In an apparent lapse of concentration I missed the NOTAM shortening the runways at cmh. The remaining distance made the runway too short to meet regulatory requirements. Neither I nor the captain caught this error; the crew did contact me in range to cmh and said they were having trouble getting landing numbers. I thought they were having a communication problem and gave them the numbers off the copy stored with the flight paperwork that showed 5;344 ft for the landing distance required. Runway 10R-28L had been reduced to 7;000 ft and 28R to 8;000 ft. It was not until a co-worker pointed out the runway NOTAM to me that I became aware of the error; by that time the aircraft was airborne on the way back. There is no excuse for missing a critical NOTAM like this. I will need to redouble my effort to spend a little more time to make sure that I am truly reading and comprehending the materials I look at not only notams; but also weather and mels. I do not believe anything will be gained by additional training as I fully understand the limitations. I do think something would be gained if; when runways are notamed out for long periods of time while under construction; the full length option was removed from the available selections. By doing this we would be adding additional level of redundancy. I also believe that crews should be running a landing prediction before departing so that when they sign a release they have looked at the whole flight and not just the departure. I do not know if the crews' procedures require this but it could also help stop events at a much earlier stage in the chain of failures that make up these events.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CRJ200 Dispatcher learns after the fact that he has dispatched an aircraft with an anti skid MEL to an airport with a shortened runway due to construction. The NOTAM was somehow missed or not correlated with the MEL. The aircraft was able to land and takeoff without issue; even though the runway length did not meet requirements for this MEL.

Narrative: I released a flight with 1CH ANTI SKID inoperative. In an apparent lapse of concentration I missed the NOTAM shortening the runways at CMH. The remaining distance made the runway too short to meet regulatory requirements. Neither I nor the Captain caught this error; the crew did contact me in range to CMH and said they were having trouble getting landing numbers. I thought they were having a communication problem and gave them the numbers off the copy stored with the flight paperwork that showed 5;344 FT for the landing distance required. Runway 10R-28L had been reduced to 7;000 FT and 28R to 8;000 FT. It was not until a co-worker pointed out the runway NOTAM to me that I became aware of the error; by that time the aircraft was airborne on the way back. There is no excuse for missing a critical NOTAM like this. I will need to redouble my effort to spend a little more time to make sure that I am truly reading and comprehending the materials I look at not only NOTAMs; but also weather and MELs. I do not believe anything will be gained by additional training as I fully understand the limitations. I do think something would be gained if; when runways are NOTAMed out for long periods of time while under construction; the full length option was removed from the available selections. By doing this we would be adding additional level of redundancy. I also believe that crews should be running a landing prediction before departing so that when they sign a release they have looked at the whole flight and not just the departure. I do not know if the crews' procedures require this but it could also help stop events at a much earlier stage in the chain of failures that make up these events.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.