3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoTo 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.