A320 dispatcher reports inability to communicate with a flight that ultimately diverts due to a fuel...

Narrative:

Flight reported problems to maintenance with his fuel calculations and his fuel predict page showing landing in sfo with -1.2. Maintenance suggested checking fuel burn and current g/w on fuel system page. Calculate your estimated fuel used from gross at dept. What they were looking for was confirmation on excessive burn/fuel leak. The flt departed with dispatchable fuel within 100lbs. The fcst winds were very strong (175kts on the nose) but the fuel was built to reflect this. I tried to call them; but no joy in me reading them. They sent a msg to me saying they heard my call; but could not get thru to me and that they were going to dvrt. My opinion; it seems to me that if the crew had looked at the fuel on board and compared to flt pln vs just the fmc calculator; and continued on deeper into the flt plan; they may have come up with a more correct fuel situation. The winds fell off a lot after gep and worse case if in fact there was a leak; they could have stopped in den. A discussion with dispatch would certainly have given us more options and a better operation. Again; my opinion. The flight did land safely.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 Dispatcher Reports inability to communicate with a flight that ultimately diverts due to a fuel anomaly. Reporter believes that the fuel predict page may have been giving inaccurate information due to high winds and that the divert was premature.

Narrative: Flight reported problems to maintenance with his fuel calculations and his fuel predict page showing landing in SFO with -1.2. Maintenance suggested checking fuel burn and current g/w on fuel system page. Calculate your estimated fuel used from gross at dept. What they were looking for was confirmation on excessive burn/fuel leak. The flt departed with dispatchable fuel within 100lbs. The fcst winds were very strong (175kts on the nose) but the fuel was built to reflect this. I tried to call them; but no joy in me reading them. They sent a msg to me saying they heard my call; but could not get thru to me and that they were going to dvrt. My opinion; it seems to me that if the crew had looked at the fuel on board and compared to flt pln vs just the fmc calculator; and continued on deeper into the flt plan; they may have come up with a more correct fuel situation. The winds fell off a lot after GEP and worse case if in fact there was a leak; they could have stopped in DEN. A discussion with dispatch would certainly have given us more options and a better operation. Again; my opinion. The flight did land safely.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.

Attributes
ACN	855054
Time
Date	200910
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	ZZZ.Airport
State Reference	US
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Component
Aircraft Component	FMS/FMC
Person 1
Function	Dispatcher
Qualification	Dispatch Dispatcher
Events
Anomaly	Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Other / Unknown Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown

A320 dispatcher reports inability to communicate with a flight that ultimately diverts due to a fuel anomaly. Reporter believes that the fuel predict page may have been giving inaccurate information due to high winds and that the divert was premature.