A B757-200 with an inoperative thrust reverser departed for a destination with a runway too short fo...

Attributes
ACN	632787
Time
Date	200409
Day	Fri
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : zny.artcc
State Reference	NY
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	artcc : zny.artcc
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B757-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	cruise : level
Route In Use	enroute : atlantic
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : relief pilot
ASRS Report	632787
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe maintenance problem : improper documentation maintenance problem : non compliance with mel non adherence : company policies non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other other : disp 6
Resolutory Action	flight crew : diverted to another airport other
Consequence	other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Aircraft Company Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

Upon returning home from my trip, I had a message from airline safety office inquiring as to why I did not as soon as possible a previous flight on sep/sat/04. On this flight in question, we were SELCAL'ed by ZNY to contact company on HF. About 45-60 mins from our destination, dispatch informed us that we were not legal to land because one of our thrust reversers was on the MEL. They informed us that we could not land at a field of less than 7000 ft. Destination is 7070 ft, but it has a usable landing distance of 6700 ft, a change due to a displaced threshold. I was seat-filing for the captain who was on break. The first officer and I were puzzled because we did not see the penalty that dispatch was alluding to. We read it as a weight penalty that we could comply with legally. It was not until a few mins later that we realized that we had made the mistake of reading the cdl. We called the captain back and diverted to ZZZZ for an aircraft swap. Although we misread the MEL in new york and in the air initially, I thought that the problem ended with our legal landing in ZZZZ. I was unaware that we were in violation of an far until I spoke with air carrier safety.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 WITH AN INOP THRUST REVERSER DEPARTED FOR A DEST WITH A RWY TOO SHORT FOR THE THRUST REVERSER INOP MEL.

Narrative: UPON RETURNING HOME FROM MY TRIP, I HAD A MESSAGE FROM AIRLINE SAFETY OFFICE INQUIRING AS TO WHY I DID NOT ASAP A PREVIOUS FLT ON SEP/SAT/04. ON THIS FLT IN QUESTION, WE WERE SELCAL'ED BY ZNY TO CONTACT COMPANY ON HF. ABOUT 45-60 MINS FROM OUR DEST, DISPATCH INFORMED US THAT WE WERE NOT LEGAL TO LAND BECAUSE ONE OF OUR THRUST REVERSERS WAS ON THE MEL. THEY INFORMED US THAT WE COULD NOT LAND AT A FIELD OF LESS THAN 7000 FT. DEST IS 7070 FT, BUT IT HAS A USABLE LNDG DISTANCE OF 6700 FT, A CHANGE DUE TO A DISPLACED THRESHOLD. I WAS SEAT-FILING FOR THE CAPT WHO WAS ON BREAK. THE FO AND I WERE PUZZLED BECAUSE WE DID NOT SEE THE PENALTY THAT DISPATCH WAS ALLUDING TO. WE READ IT AS A WT PENALTY THAT WE COULD COMPLY WITH LEGALLY. IT WAS NOT UNTIL A FEW MINS LATER THAT WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD MADE THE MISTAKE OF READING THE CDL. WE CALLED THE CAPT BACK AND DIVERTED TO ZZZZ FOR AN ACFT SWAP. ALTHOUGH WE MISREAD THE MEL IN NEW YORK AND IN THE AIR INITIALLY, I THOUGHT THAT THE PROB ENDED WITH OUR LEGAL LNDG IN ZZZZ. I WAS UNAWARE THAT WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF AN FAR UNTIL I SPOKE WITH ACR SAFETY.

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.

A B757-200 with an inoperative thrust reverser departed for a destination with a runway too short for the thrust reverser inoperative MEL.