AN A320 WOULD NOT ROTATE AFTER CONSIDERABLE AFT STICK PRESSURE WAS APPLIED ON TKOF; AND THE TKOF WAS ABORTED. THE CAPT REPORTS THAT THE CAUSE WAS A FORWARD CG; DUE TO IMPROPER LOADING.

Narrative

DURING THE TKOF ROLL; THE ACFT WOULD NOT LIFT OFF OF THE RWY IN A NORMAL MANNER. WHEN THE NOSE DID NOT ROTATE AFTER CONSIDERABLE BACK PRESSURE WAS APPLIED ON THE SIDE STICK; I ABORTED THE ACFT SAFELY. DATA SHOWS 3600 FT OF RWY REMAINING AFTER THE ACFT WAS STOPPED. A FORWARD CENTER OF GRAVITY WAS FOUND TO BE THE CAUSE OF THE PROB. CORRECT LOADING OF THE ACFT WOULD PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE ACR UTILIZES AN ON BOARD PERSONAL COMPUTER PERFORMANCE APPLICATION THAT DETERMINES THE DISTRIBUTION OF PAX BASED ON THE CURRENT FLT'S PAX LOAD. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE; THERE WERE 57 PAX; A RARE SITUATION; AND THE BAGGAGE WAS FWD LOADED. THE SOFTWARE COULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR FWD LIGHT LOAD PAX DISTRIBUTION BECAUSE IT ALWAYS ASSUMES THAT THE PAX LOAD WOULD BE HIGHER AND EVENLY DISTRIBUTED. ACCORDING TO THE PERFORMANCE APPLICATION; THE ACFT AS LOADED WAS LEGAL FOR FLT. THE RPTR STATED THAT THE ACR QUESTIONED THE REJECTED TKOF ABOVE V1. THE RPTR'S RESPONSE WAS THAT BECAUSE THE ACFT WOULD NOT ROTATE; IT WAS NOT FLYABLE; AND THAT THEREFORE THE ONLY OPTION WAS TO ABORT. IT IS THE RPTR'S BELIEF THAT THE SOFTWARE HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FLT'S LOAD DISTRIBUTION AND THAT ANY FLT WITH LESS THAN 100 PAX WILL HAVE STRICTLY CONTROLLED SEATING ASSIGNMENTS.