B757-200 DISPATCHER APPROVED A MALFUNCTIONING FMS PER THE MEL. THE ACFT WAS TO OPERATE IN AN AREA WHERE CLASS 2 NAV WAS REQUIRED.

Narrative

I WAS THE DISPATCHER FOR FLT FROM EWR ON JUL/SUN/03. THE EQUIP WAS A B757-200. AFTER PUSHBACK THE ACFT EXPERIENCED A R-HAND FMC FAILURE ON THE GND IN EWR. AS THE ACFT IS EQUIPPED WITH MULTIPLE LONG RANGE NAV SYS; WE ARE AUTH TO OPERATE IN RVSM AIRSPACE WITH ONLY 1 FMC; WITH NO LOSS OF NAVIGATIONAL CAPABILITY. TAKING THIS INTO CONSIDERATION; I ADVISED THE CREW WE WERE LEGAL TO CONTINUE WITHOUT RETURNING TO THE GATE TO APPLY THE MEL AS I CONSIDERED THE FLT ENRTE AFTER IT HAD PUSHED FROM THE GATE. THIS WAS A MISINTERP OF THE FLT OPS MANUAL. ACCORDING TO THE PRECEDING; I SHOULD HAVE APPLIED MEL TO THE DISPATCH RELEASE WITH A VERBAL AMENDMENT AND VALID TIME. INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING THE FLT ENRTE AND OPERATING SOLELY BY THE QRH. ACCORDING TO OUR OPS MANUAL; THE MEL IS THE CTLING DOCUMENT UNTIL THE FLT IS AIRBORNE. USING THESE RULES I SHOULD HAVE VERBALLY ADDED THE MEL TO THE FLT RELEASE AND MADE A LOG OK SUCH BEFORE THE ACFT BECAME AIRBORNE. AS IT WAS; THE FLT STILL COMPLIED WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE MEL AND QRH AND NONE OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE FLT DEVIATED FROM THE OPS SPECS EXCEPT IN REGARD TO VERBALLY ADDING THE PLACARD. THE ACFT WAS STILL CAPABLE OF OPERATING IN RVSM AIRSPACE WITH 1 FMC.