Narrative:

Flight plan figured by computer input by me for flight X was for aircraft X, an medium large transport, when in reality flight X was being flown by aircraft Y, an medium large transport with a computerized flight plan, showing a burn of 8600 pounds. This compares with a burn of 13600 pounds for large transport bos-pit aircraft Y, the large transport some 5000 pounds difference. The mistake was not caught by the station personnel, the captain or by myself, the dispatcher. The mistake was not found until flight was airborne and was further compounded by lengthy taxi delay and en route WX. Flight was not allowed to fly flight plan due to ATC factors caused by WX which took flight 240-270 mi off route close to dca contributing to X diverting to mdt for fuel. As grievous as the mistakes were, had flight X been allowed to fly flight plan to pit, flight would have terminated as scheduled in pit, so safety was not compromised or jeopardized. Nor was safety a concern with en route deviations caused by ATC as there were numerous airports to land short, including abe, ewr, phl, bwi, iad, dca and finally, mdt, which was chosen. Flight X landed mdt with 10000 pounds or more on board, which is my normal arrival fuel for normal large transport trips. Flight X was fueled in mdt and proceeded to pit with a 1:18 delay. To reiterate, the problem was begun by my inattentiveness to detail with similar aircraft numbers (X and Y) determining accurate fuel burns and again by my not checking figures on release for the numbers. I look at 50-60 times a day. Thinking back to first seeing the flight plan, the figures didn't look familiar. The arrival fuel figured for aircraft medium large transport was around 12500 pounds for pit, which was close to what I would have planned for the large transport considering taxi time and minor en route deviations, but it still did not seem abnormal looking at the figures.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN ACR LGT ACFT DIVERTED FOR FUEL DUE TO INSUFFICIENT FUEL CAUSED BY DISPATCH ERROR.

Narrative: FLT PLAN FIGURED BY COMPUTER INPUT BY ME FOR FLT X WAS FOR ACFT X, AN MLG, WHEN IN REALITY FLT X WAS BEING FLOWN BY ACFT Y, AN MLG WITH A COMPUTERIZED FLT PLAN, SHOWING A BURN OF 8600 LBS. THIS COMPARES WITH A BURN OF 13600 LBS FOR LGT BOS-PIT ACFT Y, THE LGT SOME 5000 LBS DIFFERENCE. THE MISTAKE WAS NOT CAUGHT BY THE STATION PERSONNEL, THE CAPT OR BY MYSELF, THE DISPATCHER. THE MISTAKE WAS NOT FOUND UNTIL FLT WAS AIRBORNE AND WAS FURTHER COMPOUNDED BY LENGTHY TAXI DELAY AND ENRTE WX. FLT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO FLY FLT PLAN DUE TO ATC FACTORS CAUSED BY WX WHICH TOOK FLT 240-270 MI OFF RTE CLOSE TO DCA CONTRIBUTING TO X DIVERTING TO MDT FOR FUEL. AS GRIEVOUS AS THE MISTAKES WERE, HAD FLT X BEEN ALLOWED TO FLY FLT PLAN TO PIT, FLT WOULD HAVE TERMINATED AS SCHEDULED IN PIT, SO SAFETY WAS NOT COMPROMISED OR JEOPARDIZED. NOR WAS SAFETY A CONCERN WITH ENRTE DEVS CAUSED BY ATC AS THERE WERE NUMEROUS ARPTS TO LAND SHORT, INCLUDING ABE, EWR, PHL, BWI, IAD, DCA AND FINALLY, MDT, WHICH WAS CHOSEN. FLT X LANDED MDT WITH 10000 LBS OR MORE ON BOARD, WHICH IS MY NORMAL ARR FUEL FOR NORMAL LGT TRIPS. FLT X WAS FUELED IN MDT AND PROCEEDED TO PIT WITH A 1:18 DELAY. TO REITERATE, THE PROB WAS BEGUN BY MY INATTENTIVENESS TO DETAIL WITH SIMILAR ACFT NUMBERS (X AND Y) DETERMINING ACCURATE FUEL BURNS AND AGAIN BY MY NOT CHKING FIGURES ON RELEASE FOR THE NUMBERS. I LOOK AT 50-60 TIMES A DAY. THINKING BACK TO FIRST SEEING THE FLT PLAN, THE FIGURES DIDN'T LOOK FAMILIAR. THE ARR FUEL FIGURED FOR ACFT MLG WAS AROUND 12500 LBS FOR PIT, WHICH WAS CLOSE TO WHAT I WOULD HAVE PLANNED FOR THE LGT CONSIDERING TAXI TIME AND MINOR ENRTE DEVS, BUT IT STILL DID NOT SEEM ABNORMAL LOOKING AT THE FIGURES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.