Good afternoon ladies and gents,I do a fair bit of regional route flying using the NGX in regional WA (YPKG, YPPD, YNWN etc). I was just wondering, on these 1 to 2 hour routes to small regional fields whether it's normal to dispatch with the return fuel already loaded so as not to worry about refuelling at the destination? I have actually flown many (too many probably) of these routes but couldn't recall where refuelling happened. Airlines like Qantas and Virgin Australia use B738 and B737's on these routes a lot and I thought someone 'out there' might know the answer?Thanks for NGX and the interesting information that comes through this forum,CheersJames Cleverley

I guess that will depend on company SOP and what the Captain prefers. When we do triangle flights (ex. BRU-HRG-CAI-BRU) we often fuel at both destinations, even though the flight in between is, in this case, only 40-45 minutes. Note, this doesn't always happen, sometimes we refuel for the leg home on the first destination, sometimes we have enough fuel on board to continue to the second destination without fueling.I guess you could think of your situation in the same way, depending on company SOP and Captain's preference. It'll all be about costs vs benefits too, I think, you're carrying a lot of unnecessary fuel if you take both legs worth of fuel with you, but(if you have a decent cabin crew) you might make turnarounds considerably faster.

As long as you don't have more then 5400kg of fuel on landing you can tanker fuel for the return. In real life, with more then this amount of fuel, the chance of environmental icing on the wing increases a lot. Off course, also in real life, it are the fuel prices that dictate if you will tanker fuel as much as you can or re-fuel fully at destination :)

I fly to a lot if small out if the way airports and fuel is considerably more expensive so we carry "load permitting" fuel most of the time. We've never really worried about icing.

Thanks for the thoughts. Not sure icing is a problem in Perth today ... 39 degrees ... 47 yesterday up North (another set of problems). Yes I can see its a complex set of calculations basically boiling down to the phrase "load permitting". My guess is fuel costs in regional WA fields would be pricey!Cheers James

Thanks for the thoughts. Not sure icing is a problem in Perth today ... 39 degrees ... 47 yesterday up North (another set of problems). Yes I can see its a complex set of calculations basically boiling down to the phrase "load permitting". My guess is fuel costs in regional WA fields would be pricey!Cheers James

WA? We're talking Nome, Barrow, Deadhorse...

In this case WA means Western Australia I think.In any case, cold-soaked fuel icing can happen even in this high temperatures, provided it is cooled enough in cruise. I dont know if it can be on your routes though.

In this case WA means Western Australia I think.In any case, cold-soaked fuel icing can happen even in this high temperatures, provided it is cooled enough in cruise. I dont know if it can be on your routes though.

Ha! That makes much more sense. I was wondering how an Aussie would know the two-letter for Washington state.

well that would just be the question of being faced with those two-lettters I think. I never really learned them, but by the virtue of reading travelouges and whatnot I recognise all of those codes.

Ha! That makes much more sense. I was wondering how an Aussie would know the two-letter for Washington state.

Thanks to the dual miracles of TV and the Internet I could probably tell you the two letter codes for about half of the US, despite being a European. If I see them written down I could certainly figure out what the rest stand for too.As for tankering the main consideration is usually price. If you carry enough fuel for two legs it means on the outbound leg you are burning fuel in order to carry fuel. The question is, does the extra fuel you burn cost less than the price difference between the two airports. Since oil prices are not constant (and neither is fuel burn, since it depends on factors such as weather) that question can have a different answer each flight.In regional WA though it may well be that the important question is not what the price of fuel is at the destination field, but whether there is fuel available at all.In any case it certainly wouldn't be unrealistic to simulate flying with fuel for the return trip already loaded. Just remember to add that to your payload when doing fuel planning for the outbound leg or you might burn more fuel than you were expecting.John-Alan Pascoe

I have seen quotes that uplifting each extra ton costs about 35 dollars in an hours flight. I have no idea what were the prices then though.Truth is, that from all the scheduled operators operating into KSC in last few years, I only seen fueling in SkyEuropes LTN-KSC-LTN route. Carrying all that extra fuel all over from the UK prolly just was not worth it. Although they did tanker on BTS-KSC-MAN as well as BTS-KSC-BTS (and I think also MAN-KSC-BTS, since it is only about tonne and a half extra, if that)yep, we have expensive fuel.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45758776/ns/local_news-anchorage_ak/t/coast-guard-cutter-help-nome-fuel-delivery/That's why we're tankering and landing at MGLW at PAOM.

Thanks to the dual miracles of TV and the Internet I could probably tell you the two letter codes for about half of the US, despite being a European. If I see them written down I could certainly figure out what the rest stand for too.John-Alan Pascoe

It was more surprise in my thinking you knew I worked in Washington state. :)