Narrative:

Dispatchers received an email from flight control standards alerting us to check our landing weights into vabb more carefully due to a shortened runway. The email stated this runway was shortened due to construction and referenced vabb commercial chart. Our international commercial charts do not have this page; nor is it listed in the log; but it is in the online commercial charts. This page gives new tora/lda for runway 9/27; but there is no NOTAM noting these new lengths. Operations for the aircraft and the aircraft operation manual reflect the new distances listed on commercial chart. I was able to successfully calculate my operations weights by manually shortening the runway length to match chart. However; this disconnect of information could potentially be a safety issue for more crews and dispatchers. Flight crew suggestions/narrative: our commercial chart manuals say 'for reference only' and are supposedly kept up to date. I suggest we either update them to the same standard as the flight crew's or get rid of them. Having 2 sets of information (electronic and paper) is creating confusion and may lead to critical error. At the minimum; the vabb page should be added to the international charts. Our runway data should be updated to match the listed tora/lda on the pages; or a company NOTAM published to better explain what distances are to be used. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: it is not quite clear who sent the e-mail referencing the construction at vabb and the reduced runway length available; but it caused quite a stir in the dispatching department. It now appears that the NOTAM had been deleted at the time the e-mail was sent but it was valid for several months and the dispatching department was unaware of it. Having paper manuals around that are not regularly updated is part of the problem and the other is vabb has 86 current NOTAMS.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DISPATCHER LEARNS VIA COMPANY E-MAIL THAT RWY 9/27 AT VABB HAS BEEN SHORTENED BY CONSTRUCTION. BELIEVES NOTAM AND CHART UPDATE PROCEDURES ARE FLAWED AT HIS ACR.

Narrative: DISPATCHERS RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM FLT CTL STANDARDS ALERTING US TO CHK OUR LNDG WTS INTO VABB MORE CAREFULLY DUE TO A SHORTENED RWY. THE EMAIL STATED THIS RWY WAS SHORTENED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION AND REFED VABB COMMERCIAL CHART. OUR INTL COMMERCIAL CHARTS DO NOT HAVE THIS PAGE; NOR IS IT LISTED IN THE LOG; BUT IT IS IN THE ONLINE COMMERCIAL CHARTS. THIS PAGE GIVES NEW TORA/LDA FOR RWY 9/27; BUT THERE IS NO NOTAM NOTING THESE NEW LENGTHS. OPS FOR THE ACFT AND THE ACFT OP MANUAL REFLECT THE NEW DISTANCES LISTED ON COMMERCIAL CHART. I WAS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY CALCULATE MY OPS WTS BY MANUALLY SHORTENING THE RWY LENGTH TO MATCH CHART. HOWEVER; THIS DISCONNECT OF INFO COULD POTENTIALLY BE A SAFETY ISSUE FOR MORE CREWS AND DISPATCHERS. FLT CREW SUGGESTIONS/NARRATIVE: OUR COMMERCIAL CHART MANUALS SAY 'FOR REF ONLY' AND ARE SUPPOSEDLY KEPT UP TO DATE. I SUGGEST WE EITHER UPDATE THEM TO THE SAME STANDARD AS THE FLT CREW'S OR GET RID OF THEM. HAVING 2 SETS OF INFO (ELECTRONIC AND PAPER) IS CREATING CONFUSION AND MAY LEAD TO CRITICAL ERROR. AT THE MINIMUM; THE VABB PAGE SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE INTL CHARTS. OUR RWY DATA SHOULD BE UPDATED TO MATCH THE LISTED TORA/LDA ON THE PAGES; OR A COMPANY NOTAM PUBLISHED TO BETTER EXPLAIN WHAT DISTANCES ARE TO BE USED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: IT IS NOT QUITE CLEAR WHO SENT THE E-MAIL REFERENCING THE CONSTRUCTION AT VABB AND THE REDUCED RWY LENGTH AVAILABLE; BUT IT CAUSED QUITE A STIR IN THE DISPATCHING DEPARTMENT. IT NOW APPEARS THAT THE NOTAM HAD BEEN DELETED AT THE TIME THE E-MAIL WAS SENT BUT IT WAS VALID FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND THE DISPATCHING DEPARTMENT WAS UNAWARE OF IT. HAVING PAPER MANUALS AROUND THAT ARE NOT REGULARLY UPDATED IS PART OF THE PROBLEM AND THE OTHER IS VABB HAS 86 CURRENT NOTAMS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.