Narrative:

Our flight plan from mco to den planned us to land at 5.5. I did not add any fuel. I noticed before departure with all the wind information entered in FMGC showed landing with 4.4. It had been a while since I have been on the aircraft and didn't notice the difference at the time. When we were airborne; ATC sent us on a heading of 020 degrees for 10 mins. I noticed the landing fuel was dropping to 4.0. I insisted on course and we were cleared to vgg (navy cecil VOR). Checking the winds; we noticed they were much stronger than the flight plan forecasts indicated. By the time we reached sgf; we were 1500 pounds lower. We sent many messages to dispatcher to keep them updated for fuel burn. He was very helpful; but his computer said we would still land with 5.5 and to continue. Our FMGC was showing 2.5. We asked for wind updates further along the route. 120 mi from ict; I contacted dispatcher via voice. We talked and he worked a better direct routing through dandd; otherwise we would land in ict for fuel. The closer to ict the headwinds were dropping and our FMGC showed landing at 3.0. We decided to continue to den with the thought of declaring minimum fuel. ZDV lowered us early and we requested to remain high. They needed us lower and I declared minimum fuel. They did work out runway 26 for us and we landed with 3.0 on touchdown. I spoke with the dispatcher. He agreed there was something wrong with flight programming of flight plan forecasts.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DISPATCHED TO DEN WITH MINIMUM ARR FUEL; HANDLING ENRTE AND BAD WINDS CAUSE FLT CREW OF A320 TO REQUEST EXPEDITED HANDLING ON ARR. LAND WITH JUST 3000 LBS ON BOARD.

Narrative: OUR FLT PLAN FROM MCO TO DEN PLANNED US TO LAND AT 5.5. I DID NOT ADD ANY FUEL. I NOTICED BEFORE DEP WITH ALL THE WIND INFO ENTERED IN FMGC SHOWED LNDG WITH 4.4. IT HAD BEEN A WHILE SINCE I HAVE BEEN ON THE ACFT AND DIDN'T NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE AT THE TIME. WHEN WE WERE AIRBORNE; ATC SENT US ON A HDG OF 020 DEGS FOR 10 MINS. I NOTICED THE LNDG FUEL WAS DROPPING TO 4.0. I INSISTED ON COURSE AND WE WERE CLRED TO VGG (NAVY CECIL VOR). CHKING THE WINDS; WE NOTICED THEY WERE MUCH STRONGER THAN THE FLT PLAN FORECASTS INDICATED. BY THE TIME WE REACHED SGF; WE WERE 1500 LBS LOWER. WE SENT MANY MESSAGES TO DISPATCHER TO KEEP THEM UPDATED FOR FUEL BURN. HE WAS VERY HELPFUL; BUT HIS COMPUTER SAID WE WOULD STILL LAND WITH 5.5 AND TO CONTINUE. OUR FMGC WAS SHOWING 2.5. WE ASKED FOR WIND UPDATES FURTHER ALONG THE RTE. 120 MI FROM ICT; I CONTACTED DISPATCHER VIA VOICE. WE TALKED AND HE WORKED A BETTER DIRECT ROUTING THROUGH DANDD; OTHERWISE WE WOULD LAND IN ICT FOR FUEL. THE CLOSER TO ICT THE HEADWINDS WERE DROPPING AND OUR FMGC SHOWED LNDG AT 3.0. WE DECIDED TO CONTINUE TO DEN WITH THE THOUGHT OF DECLARING MINIMUM FUEL. ZDV LOWERED US EARLY AND WE REQUESTED TO REMAIN HIGH. THEY NEEDED US LOWER AND I DECLARED MINIMUM FUEL. THEY DID WORK OUT RWY 26 FOR US AND WE LANDED WITH 3.0 ON TOUCHDOWN. I SPOKE WITH THE DISPATCHER. HE AGREED THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH FLT PROGRAMMING OF FLT PLAN FORECASTS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 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.