Narrative:

Preferred routing between iad and cvg changed mar/thu/92. Company changed many rtes but neglected to change this one. No extra fuel was taken because WX was VMC and any extra fuel would have resulted in possible bumping of passenger on a flight that was fully booked. Just prior to departure time, we found out that no flight plan was on file. The clearance delivery controller offered to put one in for us and we gave him the usual route still shown on our company form. After takeoff we were reclred on the new preferred route which was much longer. The fuel problem was compounded by a 60 KT headwind instead of the 30 KT wind the captain was expecting. I did not see his wind forecasts until we were half way to cvg. Our computer system will always give winds aloft information for a city served by our air carrier. What many pilots at our company don't realize is that only certain cities have valid forecasts for the current date (i.e., fwa, lou, crw). The data for the cities he pulled up (cmh and cvg) showed dates of 'X' and 'Y' instead of 'a' and seemed unlikely -- completely different wind forecasts for cities less than 200 mi apart. We flew to crw instead of hnn but avoided further indirect routing with the help of ATC. When center later inquired as to our min fuel status, the captain said he did not declare min fuel, he just said if we flew the new route we could not accept delay vectoring. We landed and shut down in the gate with 40 pounds (about 6 gallons) above min reserve (no alternate).

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: OUTDATED WINDS ALOFT FORECASTS AND COMPUTER FLT PLAN FOR PREFERRED RTE. AMENDED CLRNC RTE CHANGE.

Narrative: PREFERRED RTING BTWN IAD AND CVG CHANGED MAR/THU/92. COMPANY CHANGED MANY RTES BUT NEGLECTED TO CHANGE THIS ONE. NO EXTRA FUEL WAS TAKEN BECAUSE WX WAS VMC AND ANY EXTRA FUEL WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN POSSIBLE BUMPING OF PAX ON A FLT THAT WAS FULLY BOOKED. JUST PRIOR TO DEP TIME, WE FOUND OUT THAT NO FLT PLAN WAS ON FILE. THE CLRNC DELIVERY CTLR OFFERED TO PUT ONE IN FOR US AND WE GAVE HIM THE USUAL RTE STILL SHOWN ON OUR COMPANY FORM. AFTER TKOF WE WERE RECLRED ON THE NEW PREFERRED RTE WHICH WAS MUCH LONGER. THE FUEL PROBLEM WAS COMPOUNDED BY A 60 KT HEADWIND INSTEAD OF THE 30 KT WIND THE CAPT WAS EXPECTING. I DID NOT SEE HIS WIND FORECASTS UNTIL WE WERE HALF WAY TO CVG. OUR COMPUTER SYS WILL ALWAYS GIVE WINDS ALOFT INFO FOR A CITY SERVED BY OUR ACR. WHAT MANY PLTS AT OUR COMPANY DON'T REALIZE IS THAT ONLY CERTAIN CITIES HAVE VALID FORECASTS FOR THE CURRENT DATE (I.E., FWA, LOU, CRW). THE DATA FOR THE CITIES HE PULLED UP (CMH AND CVG) SHOWED DATES OF 'X' AND 'Y' INSTEAD OF 'A' AND SEEMED UNLIKELY -- COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WIND FORECASTS FOR CITIES LESS THAN 200 MI APART. WE FLEW TO CRW INSTEAD OF HNN BUT AVOIDED FURTHER INDIRECT ROUTING WITH THE HELP OF ATC. WHEN CTR LATER INQUIRED AS TO OUR MIN FUEL STATUS, THE CAPT SAID HE DID NOT DECLARE MIN FUEL, HE JUST SAID IF WE FLEW THE NEW RTE WE COULD NOT ACCEPT DELAY VECTORING. WE LANDED AND SHUT DOWN IN THE GATE WITH 40 POUNDS (ABOUT 6 GALLONS) ABOVE MIN RESERVE (NO ALTERNATE).

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.