Narrative:

I performed my normal review of all flight paperwork including the maintenance log prior to our departure. No dispatch items were listed and only minor cosmetic MEL/cdl items were documented. In other words; nothing that would adversely impact our flight from a safety standpoint. While performing my preflight FMS setup I requested performance data via ACARS for the active runway. The data came back stating that we were unable due to vmcg. I have not seen this before and proceeded to request another set of performance for both runway xx and 34. Neither returned with valid data. I requested numbers for runway xy and was able to get valid performance numbers. I informed the captain of the situation and we decided that though unusual we could request a departure from runway xy via clearance delivery. Clearance delivery protested our request as this was not the active runway and would cause much delay for us. We then decided to contact dispatch and find out what was going on with our performance data. In the meantime a new maintenance release arrived at the cockpit printer. I was in the process of finalizing my preflight duties and had not yet reviewed the final print out. We contacted dispatch via satcom and were informed that due to the MEL they were unable to generate valid performance data for not only runways xx and xz; but also runway xy. The captain and I were surprised to hear that an MEL was restricting us because no MEL had been listed on the original paperwork. We were unaware and had not been informed by either station operations nor dispatch that while the aircraft underwent post-flight inspection in ZZZZ a lh wing-body fairing flap door had been found missing. This imposed a tremendous weight penalty on our take off as well as would have required us to leave the landing gear down for 10 minutes after take-off. This explained the invalid performance data and was confirmed by the new maintenance release print out. The company eventually chose to cancel our flight. My main concern was a) lack of communication between local maintenance/operations and our crew. We were never informed of this issue until we spoke to our dispatcher. B) runway xy performance numbers obtained initially from ACARS were supposedly valid despite being the shortest runway on the airport. It is possible but not probable that through a series of further miscommunication that we could have attempted a takeoff on that runway with invalid data and been in a potentially unsafe condition. Our final weights from load planning most likely would have prevented this from happening.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B787 First Officer reported that a communication breakdown between local personnel; Dispatch; and Maintenance resulted in a flight cancellation.

Narrative: I performed my normal review of all flight paperwork including the maintenance log prior to our departure. No dispatch items were listed and only minor cosmetic MEL/CDL items were documented. In other words; nothing that would adversely impact our flight from a safety standpoint. While performing my preflight FMS setup I requested performance data via ACARS for the active runway. The data came back stating that we were unable due to VMCG. I have not seen this before and proceeded to request another set of performance for both Runway XX and 34. Neither returned with valid data. I requested numbers for Runway XY and was able to get valid performance numbers. I informed the Captain of the situation and we decided that though unusual we could request a departure from Runway XY via clearance delivery. Clearance delivery protested our request as this was not the active runway and would cause much delay for us. We then decided to contact dispatch and find out what was going on with our performance data. In the meantime a new Maintenance Release arrived at the cockpit printer. I was in the process of finalizing my preflight duties and had not yet reviewed the final print out. We contacted dispatch via SATCOM and were informed that due to the MEL they were unable to generate valid performance data for not only Runways XX and XZ; but also Runway XY. The Captain and I were surprised to hear that an MEL was restricting us because no MEL had been listed on the original paperwork. We were unaware and had not been informed by either station operations nor dispatch that while the aircraft underwent post-flight inspection in ZZZZ a LH wing-body fairing flap door had been found missing. This imposed a tremendous weight penalty on our take off as well as would have required us to leave the landing gear down for 10 minutes after take-off. This explained the invalid performance data and was confirmed by the new Maintenance Release print out. The company eventually chose to cancel our flight. My main concern was A) lack of communication between local maintenance/operations and our crew. We were never informed of this issue until we spoke to our Dispatcher. B) Runway XY performance numbers obtained initially from ACARS were supposedly valid despite being the shortest runway on the airport. It is possible but not probable that through a series of further miscommunication that we could have attempted a takeoff on that runway with invalid data and been in a potentially unsafe condition. Our final weights from load planning most likely would have prevented this from happening.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.