3 ms·

If it goes wrong, they crash and you lose two planes and several hundred people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbQ9LXZwJ78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb

If it goes wrong, they crash and you lose two planes and several hundred people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbQ9LXZwJ78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbQ9LXZwJ78

dylan604 3y ago
This is a bit skewed though. If there was no mid-air refueling and the plane was lost, you still loose several hundred people and a plane, but wouldn't be out the second plane. The second plane is autonomous so no additional people are lost. It's really not making the stat of losing a passenger plane more consequential.
- enigmurl 3y ago
  Presumably GP was implying that adding a second plane increases the chance of a crash, not claiming that it increases the conseuqences should it happen
- krisoft 3y ago
  > It's really not making the stat of losing a passenger plane more consequential. It makes it more likely, not more consequential. You know how on the ground they sometimes tell you to not wear your safety belts while they refuel the plane? It is because every refueling has a risk of fire. An inflight refueling probably even more so. > The second plane is autonomous so no additional people are lost. Worth noting that in these experiments the tanker plane was not uncrewed. It is the act of connecting the hose which is automated here. (And they also tested with autonomous receiver planes.)
  - HPsquared 3y ago
    To be fair, spills or leaks during refuelling on land risks forming a pool of burning liquid around the aircraft. Aerial refuelling leaks would go overboard so probably not the same fire risk. It's more a risk of collision, I think.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > Aerial refuelling leaks would go overboard That assumes it is not an internal leak of course. Where would the receiver probe be? Probably on the nose or on the forward section of the cabin roof and you have to pipe that back to the fuel tanks (mostly in or around the wings). If maintenance ever does a shoddy job on connecting those pipes the time you will realise it is when jet-a is firehosing out of the galley. Now obviously that involves maintenance problems and a bit of bad luck too, but that is not an unheard of combination.

If it goes wrong, they crash and you lose two planes and several hundred people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbQ9LXZwJ78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbQ9LXZwJ78

dylan604 3y ago

This is a bit skewed though. If there was no mid-air refueling and the plane was lost, you still loose several hundred people and a plane, but wouldn't be out the second plane. The second plane is autonomous so no additional people are lost. It's really not making the stat of losing a passenger plane more consequential.

enigmurl 3y ago
Presumably GP was implying that adding a second plane increases the chance of a crash, not claiming that it increases the conseuqences should it happen
krisoft 3y ago
> It's really not making the stat of losing a passenger plane more consequential. It makes it more likely, not more consequential. You know how on the ground they sometimes tell you to not wear your safety belts while they refuel the plane? It is because every refueling has a risk of fire. An inflight refueling probably even more so. > The second plane is autonomous so no additional people are lost. Worth noting that in these experiments the tanker plane was not uncrewed. It is the act of connecting the hose which is automated here. (And they also tested with autonomous receiver planes.)
- HPsquared 3y ago
  To be fair, spills or leaks during refuelling on land risks forming a pool of burning liquid around the aircraft. Aerial refuelling leaks would go overboard so probably not the same fire risk. It's more a risk of collision, I think.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > Aerial refuelling leaks would go overboard That assumes it is not an internal leak of course. Where would the receiver probe be? Probably on the nose or on the forward section of the cabin roof and you have to pipe that back to the fuel tanks (mostly in or around the wings). If maintenance ever does a shoddy job on connecting those pipes the time you will realise it is when jet-a is firehosing out of the galley. Now obviously that involves maintenance problems and a bit of bad luck too, but that is not an unheard of combination.