Could civilian AAR ever happen?

[dogle]

AFAIK, AAR has never been attempted seriously in (commercial) civilian operations. With the ?quadrupling of fuel costs in recent years, perhaps there is now an incentive.

Yesterday's announcement, by a a significant SE Asian carrier, that their extra-long-haul flights (Singapore to LA and to Newark) were to chopped because they were no longer economically viable as non-stops due to present fuel costs, has resurrected a longstanding question in my mind - could civilian AAR operations ever be a realistic prospect for long-haul passenger flights?

I have no personal experience of the difficulties of air-to-air refuelling, and hope that others here - who most certainly have! - may be able to offer enlightenment?

(I am mindful that, as Operation Corporate emerged, the impossible suddenly ceased to be and that Large Aircraft were modified with amazing swiftness).

[BEagle]

Could civilian AAR operations ever be a realistic prospect for long-haul passenger flights?


No. People who have raised this nonsense in the past have usually failed to add the cost of the tanker and its operation into the equation.

[ShotOne]

The commercial margins in the airline world are tight to the extent that an increase in fuel cost can render a route uneconomic. I admire your original thought but the savings provided by taking on fuel later in the flight wouldn't even begin to cover the capital cost of the tanker aircraft, it's fuel, training, and probes on the airliners.

[trap one]

And with the hidtory of AAR what Civilian airline would ask it's paying customers to take the "risk" or more to the point what Civil Airline would pay the insurance

[ShotOne]

The strict answer to your question dogle, is yes it could happen and it has in fact already been done! The first practical air refuelling was developed by a civilian company, Flight Refuelling Ltd in 1935 for a civilian application, extending the range of Empire class flying boats. They made 15 successful transatlantic flights until WWII intervened.

I applaud your thinking; Beagle was a bit unkind to use the word 'nonsense' although I agree with his conclusion.

[ian16th]

For the full story you need to read 'In Cobhams' Company', by Colin Crudas. ISBN 0 952448807.

Published by Cobham PLC. Not generally available through booksellers, I got mine at the time of publication from the company.

A few available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/In-Cobhams-Company-Flight-Refuelling/dp/0952448807/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383378572&sr=8-1&keywords=In+Cobhams%27+Company

[Tankertrashnav]

Having spent many a tense hour in the back of a large aircraft as its captain sweated in his attempts to get into contact, I rather hope that for the passengers' sake if anyone does try it they'll go for the boom method rather than probe and drogue :eek:

[wiggy]

they were no longer economically viable as non-stops due to present fuel costs, has resurrected a longstanding question in my mind - could civilian AAR operations ever be a realistic prospect for long-haul passenger flights?

As the other esteemed posters have said - not economical.

SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR have been demonstrated as technically "do-able" but expensive. As always if there's sufficient demand for seats on a route "they will come", if there isn't, the customer doesn't. Adding a tanker+crew+tanker's fuel+tanker's slots to the equation is going to almost certainly going to make the economics even worse, not better.

[Courtney Mil]

I think you have the answer, as BEags has stated. However, Tankertrash hits the real nail on the head; no airline is going to allow thassengers to fly with a sweaty captain. Anyway, they wouldn't be able to do it because civilian pilots aren't as good as military pilots.

[Dr Jekyll]

Adding a tanker+crew+tanker's fuel+tanker's slots to the equation is going to almost certainly going to make the economics even worse, not better.

Playing devil's advocate here. Could there be some (perhaps minor) economic benefit from having a low fuel load on take off so being able to carry more passengers and freight, then refuelling in flight to above the maximum take off weight?

[NutLoose]

Would the economical benefit of taking off light not be written off by the tanker having to take off heavy, or indeed just it's fuel burn. And of course as mentioned that's another aircraft cost to factor in, and you would need more than one.


..

[provo]

And no-one's bitten yet Courtney:)

[Dr Jekyll]

Would the economical benefit of taking off light not be written off by the tanker having to take off heavy, or indeed just it's fuel burn. And of course as mentioned that's another aircraft cost to factor in, and you would need more than one.




Obviously. But you would have the tanker cost whether you took off light or not. I was just wondering if part of that cost might be offset by having more payload as well as longer range.

[ShyTorque]

Having spent many a tense hour in the back of a large aircraft as its captain sweated in his attempts to get into contact,

Yes, those post airshow parties often resulted in great frustration for sweaty captains....

[Lordflasheart]

Back in the old days, big airways had an emergency commitment to transport reinforcement troops to Germany. This was exercised once or twice from appropriate airfields, using spare capacity including 747s. It was noted that the emergency capacity greatly exceeded the number of troops (even then) available to be transported. We also thought it was a much better strategism to use the 747s in a westerly direction rather than into RAFG.

At the same time, someone had the brilliantly patriotic idea of fitting the then new 757s and/or 767s with a quick install flight refuelling capability. This was for dispensing only of course, as any fule kno that even civvie pilots can fly S&L provided there is something to tell 'em which way is up.

LFH

[ShotOne]

Courtney, I apologise that no civvie pilots have bothered to rise to your "aren't as good" bait, even though, as mentioned, civvies invented, developed and trialled the idea years before any military chaps gave it a go. That's because we're all too busy counting our money in jacuzzis in Barbados with fifteen hosties!

[wiggy]

I was just wondering if part of that cost might be offset by having more payload as well as longer range.

When you look at the capabilities of modern Ultra Long Haul aircraft I think you'd struggle, to say the least, to improve the economies by AAR. Just to put the numbers into context I've just looked at some figures for a modern, long range, non-AAR twin ;) on a typical real world sector-

6000 nautical mile leg, 50 tonnes of cargo/baggage in the hold and over 300 pax...and weight to spare. I think any gains you could make by AAR on that would be marginal to say the least....

ShotOne
That's because we're all too busy counting our money in jacuzzis in Barbados with fifteen hosties!

Ssshhh.....:oh: (It's stories like that led to some of us becoming ex-military :})

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

extending the range of Empire class flying boats


Was it not the Empire flying boats giving away fuel to the floatplane mounted on top of it?

Perhaps a modern equivalent would be an A330 piggy-backing on an A380 to save fuel on take-off...

[BEagle]

The Mayo composite was only used because no other solution was available at the time for a non-stop Atlantic crossing, due to delays with Cobham's experiements. Even then, Mercury (the floatplane) with a crew of just 2 (pilot and wireless officer) only carried a ½ ton payload on its Atlantic flight when released from Maia (the flying boat).

AAR was subsequently used for a short time with the S30 flying boats, but was discontinued at the outbreak of WW2.

However, AAR was only used because there was no other alternative. Much as it was 25 or so years ago when 101 Sqn flew a non-stop VC10K flight from the UK to Australia - which required another VC10K (me) from Cyprus and a TriStar from Colombo (?) for support. Not long afterwards, QANTAS flew a B747-400 non-stop from Sydney to London, but on a non-revenue flight. It might well be possible for the A350XWB-900R to fly a non-stop London-Sydney flight - but who the heck would want to be cooped up in an airliner for that length of time? Unless, of course, one was travelling in some style.

[Dan Winterland]

The main reason for the AAR of the Empire flying boats is that to reach New York, the had to stage in Ireland and Newfoundland and often it was the sea state for take off and landing which was the limiting factor. A direct flight from Southampton to NY made the schedule much more reliable. The Mayo composite had the aim of getting the mail to NY just that bit quicker.

http://www.users.waitrose.com/~mbcass/Harrow%20refuel.jpg

[Brian Abraham]

but who the heck would want to be cooped up in an airliner for that length of timeAnything in excess of 3 hours is too much. However if you have to make the trip would rather it be non stop than the current one stop with hours spent at an airport awaiting the connections departure. Just done such, so the memory is fresh - economy too. And bless the 380, the best of em all.

[Bigpants]

Hi I set up range with three ex RAF mates some years back as a means to raise the profile of civil AAR.

At the time of $180 a barrel oil I think it was getting viable based on calculations and papers published by Raj Nangia which you can find on the website or online via the RAeS etc.

Omega, a small civil AAR outfit claimed they could deliver fuel in the air a while back at $2000 a tonne using a KC135 or Extender. I believe that if we placed a KC10 or MRTT A 330 in the Gulf it might well be possibly to fly a full commercial load down to perhaps Perth. Sydney would need another top up over Singapore.

If you offset a tanker mission against the economic benefits of non stop flights which are many and varied then it could be made to work.

Boom is the way ahead and automation thanks to UAV work not far off.

Some applications quite subtle, a relatively modest uplift after take off from the Gulf would allow non stop flights to LAX with decent loads.

Anyway it's an interesting subject which may get the political and economic drivers to take off one day.

[BEagle]

Omega, a small civil AAR outfit claimed they could deliver fuel in the air a while back at $2000 a tonne using a KC135 or Extender.

Provided that you are operating a probe and drogue receiver, of course...

At the time of $180 a barrel oil I think it was getting viable based on calculations and papers published by Raj Nangia which you can find on the website or online via the RAeS etc.

Ah yes, I remember those. At the time they contacted the company for whom I worked expecting free AAR consultancy advice. It was clear that none of those involved had any significant background in AT/AAR planning - and many of the facts in their paper were factually incorrect. Our boss declined to pursue the matter further...:hmm:

If airlines really want to fly ultra long range operations, then until sub-orbital air vehicles are available, the A350XWB-900R looks like the best solution - but around 20 hours in a people-tube wouldn't be much fun, no matter in which class. Also, as the number of passengers increases and flight times increase, so does the risk of diverting with a medical emergency.....

[wiggy]

I believe that if we placed a KC10 or MRTT A 330 in the Gulf it might well be possibly to fly a full commercial load down to perhaps Perth. Sydney would need another top up over Singapore.

Haven't yet looked at the web site but at $2000 a tonne vs. $182 I still need convincing that AAR is economically advantageous :uhoh:. I know ultra ultra long range sounds attractive to some but it's worth asking if the carriers really want to, or could afford to, overfly some of the major Far east destinations....for example many passenger flights ex-Oz coming up to Europe pick up a significant amount of very lucrative cargo during the transit in the likes of SIN and BKK.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Courtney, I apologise that no civvie pilots have bothered to rise to your "aren't as good" bait, even though, as mentioned, civvies invented, developed and trialled the idea years before any military chaps gave it a go. That's because we're all too busy counting our money in jacuzzis in Barbados with fifteen hosties!

Shot one that's the biggest load of balls I've ever heard. No one believes such utter clap trap.












...there're eighteen hosties on a 747. I think even mustachioed ex-fighter pilots could get laid with those odds.

[West Coast]

The wee willies are getting upset

[Tankertrashnav]

Back in the 70's I got chatting to a lady in our hotel bar just outside Offutt AFB. Hearing we were on tankers, she told us that when her husband was in the USAF she had been on a trooping flight to Germany (presumably in a C135) which had been refuelled during the flight, (again presumably by a KC135).

Had no reason to disbelieve her, but I was not aware that the USAF ever routinely refuelled passenger aircraft. Can anyone in the know confirm this, or otherwise?

[BEagle]

....a lady in our hotel bar just outside Offutt AFB

B52 bar, Ramada Inn, Bellevue, Council Bluffs, perchance?

'A lady'.....:rolleyes: A nav on the 617th bombardment wing was talking to some female at the same place. When she asked where his home was, he told her it was in Lincoln.....

"Gee - did they name the town after our President" came the response.....:hmm:

[Tankertrashnav]

B52 bar, Ramada Inn, Bellevue,


Got it in one, Beags :ok:

We had a great discussion on the relative merits of the solid boom and probe and drogue methods ;)

Talking of Lincoln, on another occasion a lady we had met who had some business in the state capitol building there took my plotter and me along for the ride in her Lincoln. That was when they had proper cars in the US!

[BEagle]

We had a great discussion on the relative merits of the solid boom and probe and drogue methods....

Including practical simulation?

Those Offutt trips were great - in those days the UK was always on strike, we were poorly paid and inflation was rampant. So trips to the USA were eagerly anticipated and our Vulcans were carefully nursed at Goose to make sure that we were allowed to carry on to Offutt!

Last year I found some tapes I'd made at the time of the local radio stations such as KGOR and KQKQ; find suitable AOR FM station, bung in a cassette and leave it running whilst in the bar. Some great music - and "$1000 off 1979 model Chevys in National Chevy Week" adverts. Unfortunately most US Internet radio is now blocked for copyright protection :yuk:. It's OK for the US to export death and destruction world-wide, but not classic rock, it seems...:uhoh:

[West Coast]

Why don't you get a crowbar out and wedge open your wallet and pay for it. As far as exportindeath and destruction, there was once a day and age when your lot could as well. You can study it in a history book if you so care to.

[BEagle]

Why don't you get a crowbar out and wedge open your wallet and pay for it.

If only they'd allow that, I would!

As far as exporting death and destruction, there was once a day and age when your lot could as well. You can study it in a history book if you so care to.

Well, quite. Perhaps we did behave rather badly back when you lot were still 'killin' injuns', I will admit. The point was rather that it seems to be OK to export seven-point-six-two, full metal jacket x lots to the rest of the world, but not old Styx / Foreigner / Nick Gilder tracks on Internet radio.....:hmm:

[dogle]

Thanks, folks, for your most generous and greatly illuminating responses to my OP query.

I now need to confess that I expected the response to be 'Oh, too difficult!' rather than 'Oh, too dear!' (Shame on me, in this place).

My tentative conclusion is that, at presently credible fuel prices, the cost of the tanker operation is highly unlikely to be justified on fuel cost savings alone.

However if (very big IF) a tanker could refuel two or three long-haul services within the scope of a single relatively short sortie, and IF those services were in the happy position of being able to sell profitably the very substantial increase of long-haul payload capability which AAR might offer to their fleet ... it might quite easily fly.

(Beags' expert criticism most welcome - I have no commercial interest!).

My own gut feeling is that, with the sudden eagerness of several traditional Far Eastern/Oz operators to jump into the business of low-cost, long-haul operations, commercial AAR might just be in with a chance within the foreseeable - I'd hazard a 30-40% chance.

[BEagle]

However if (very big IF) a tanker could refuel two or three long-haul services within the scope of a single relatively short sortie, and IF those services were in the happy position of being able to sell profitably the very substantial increase of long-haul payload capability which AAR might offer to their fleet ... it might quite easily fly.


Let's say you need to transfer 30T to a Sydney-UK flight. Sort out the descent, RV, transfer and turn back for another long range aircraft. That's an ATC and timing nightmare and the tanker is going to need a LOT of fuel.

Sydney to London is about 9200nm. Say 120T? Not far off the capability of the next generation A350XWB - so why bother with the added expense of AAR?

Commercial airline AAR? I'd say 0% chance!

[West Coast]

Another niche is a short runway. Take off with a full boat but minimal gas, hit the tanker and off you go.

[BEagle]

ETOPS twins are inherently overpowered due to one engine inoperative performance requirements, so runways at commercial airports are rarely 'too short' these days. But a cargo airline might possibly view the option of non-stop ultra long range flights with AAR support as being worthy of investigation.

However, if there really was such a need, surely by now it would be in service? Just what commodity is there which needs to be transported so far, so fast?

[BOAC]

dogle - whilst the mechanics of tanking can no doubt be automated so that the 'average' airline pilot can do it, you need to consider the planning.

Current tanking operates either on a 'tow-line', by positioning tankers en-route or by 'accompanying' the receiver along the route.

A tow-line would be totally uneconomic for both giver and receiver. The 'staging' of a tanker along the route means the giver would have to burn a lot of fuel whilst 'giving' and then either back-track or divert - again uneconomic, as is 'accompanying' the receiver along the route. The sums just will not work out.

Then there are slots, delays, finding a suitable level, ATC.........................

It would relieve some of the long-haul boredom (for crews, anyway...........):)

[BEagle]

When we did EX PUP in Apr 1987, supporting the London-Australia record attempt, the first tanker had to do a 3 hr trip from Akrotiri to overhead El Daba, then RV with the inbound VC10K between El Daba and METRU, nominally at 26° East, then offload up to 40T between KANAR and Fayoum, before returning to Akrotiri from overhead Cairo. So we must have needed around 64T in tanks....

(Prince Charles was snoozing on board a VVIP VC10 parked outside the main terminal building..... I guess our full power departure an hour before dawn probably woke him up though.....:E)

It was at a relatively quiet time of the day and a fairly benign ATC environment, so all went OK. But the cost and complexity of a similar operation for routine airline flying rules it out, in my view.

I don't know how much they took from the second tanker, but the VC10K crew were well over MAUW and flying at M0.9 for much of the time, so must used up heaven knows how much fatigue life....:\ But they did get the record!

[West Coast]

I would beg to differ. Throw some environmental issues to a place like SNA or even SAN and yes you would.

[BOAC]

You will be creating more "environmental issues" than saving!

[West Coast]

As in a wet runway, tailwinds, AI, etc

[wiggy]

IF those services were in the happy position of being able to sell profitably the very substantial increase of long-haul payload capability which AAR might offer to their fleet ..

But the problem is most of the time you'd get no increase in payload, just range...

As Beags has rightly said the modern big ETOPS twins have so much "grunt" that you rarely need to think about reducing payload or trading fuel for payload just to meet take-off perfomance requirements. Where I work we've got a reasonably modern ETOPS twin in a variety of variants. The only places on our route network (which includes SAN BTW ;)) where we routinely have to think about reducing or limiting payload for performance reasons are a handful which are "hot and high"...and even that isn't the case on our newer variants. In fact on many sectors the Zero Fuel Weight limit is going to cap payload before any performance limit - and AAR won't fix that!!.

Now I'd agree that AAR would allow you to increase range and overfly the likes of (lucrative) BKK or SIN on the way between Europe and Oz ..but does that make economic sense?

[Bigpants]

Various points raised, I will try and answer a few. Range only interested in using boom transfer as the rates far superior and tanker availability way better.

The forerunner of BOAC ran Atlantic Trials just after WW2 to see if they could use AAR to run Lancastrians non stop to South America. Several non pax trial flights were run with a bracket off the Azores all bar one worked, see the book Range Unlimited for more detail. Jet speed and range made further trials pointless.

Dr Nangia's papers were subject to peer review and proved that in theory a small 757 sized aircraft could be tankered very long distances and save fuel in comparison to tech stops.

The big ETOP Twins are impressive but let's not forget that all long haul airliners burn a big chunk of their gas just lifting themselves off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet. Being able to get airborne lighter and uplifting fuel en route from a civ/mil MRTT might offer both economies and an ability to offer unique products.

Air Force 1 uses and needs AAR to be able to fly into useful but small airports then go anywhere with the support of a tanker.

There are many drivers and obstacles for civil AAR. Why would Boeing and Airbus support it if suddenly an A330 could last longer and fly further than an A350? Same with Boeing and the 787, rather embarrassing if we figured a KC67 could do it better.

A world wide tanker network already exists courtesy of US defence spending but would they allow civil friends to access it? Probably not but ex USAAF tankers sat out in the desert and thousands of current commercial pilots have tanking experience.

Niche products. An A319 that launches from London City takes a few tonnes off a tanker just west of Brize and then flies non stop to JFK. A B757 that takes off from Aberdeen takes on a few tonnes and flies non stop to Houston.

[vascodegama]

"Dr Nangia's papers were subject to peer review and proved that in theory a small 757 sized aircraft could be tankered very long distances and save fuel in comparison to tech stops."

True but when you take the cost of the TANKER sortie into account the economic argument is reversed.

By the way I don't think the USAAF ever had any tankers-the USAF did (and does).

[BEagle]

Dr Nangia's papers were subject to peer review...

By whom? It didn't take us long to realise that they were fundamentally flawed....

The big ETOP Twins are impressive but let's not forget that all long haul airliners burn a big chunk of their gas just lifting themselves off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet.

They don't. You are trying to find a solution to a problem which simply does not exist. Neither does Nangia's daft notion of civil airliners flying in close formation make sense either.

I've got some super snake oil for sale, if you're interested....:rolleyes:

[wiggy]

let's not forget that all long haul airliners burn a big chunk of their gas just lifting themselves off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet.

I've just looked at some numbers for the heaviest, most thirsty version on the big twin I referred to earlier, taking off at close to Max Take off weight. The fuel burn to top of climb at F300 is about 6 tonnes (about 6 % of the total burn on a 6000 nm sector) and in addition to getting you to cruise level it's also used some of that 6 tonnes to take the aircraft over 150 nm "down the road" towards destination. Back of the envelope stuff now but I reckon the actual vertical "lifting off the deck and climbing to 30,000 feet" probably only costs you around 3-4 tonnes......or 3 -4 % of the total burn for the sector..not really a "big chunk" IMHO.


Niche products. An A319 that launches from London City takes a few tonnes off a tanker just west of Brize and then flies non stop to JFK.

Ah, can I stop you there, just in case you are about to rush off to BA to sell your idea? Think about one of that product's main selling points: whilst the aircraft is being refuelled at Shannon the passengers are being rapidly whisked through a special US customs and immigration set up. When they subsequently land at JFK they are treated as domestic passengers and are through and out of the (domestic) terminal in the blink of an eye. Adopt your one hop, AAR solution and those business passengers will have to join the long line at JFK immigration, just like everybody else....that's your niche product gone...:(

(How much should I charge for that advice?? :) )

I hate to rain on peoples parades' but I do fear some are championing a solution in search of a problem.

[Pontius Navigator]

That's because we're all too busy counting our money in jacuzzis in Barbados with fifteen hosties!

You don't fly Thomson then.

[Pontius Navigator]

whilst the aircraft is being refuelled at Shannon the passengers are being rapidly whisked through a special US customs and immigration set up. When they subsequently land at JFK they are treated as domestic passengers and are through and out of the (domestic) terminal in the blink of an eye.
I luggage off-loaded?

You could achieve the same by moving CHI to London City.

[wiggy]

You could achieve the same by moving CHI to London City.

True, but I'm not sure that was politically or financially possible, hence the decision to make use the existing Shannon facility.

Not sure about luggage - and in any event given the passenger profile on the route I'd doubt there would be much, if any.

[West Coast]

ETOPS isn't all 777 with 90K engines, try a guppy from SNA to HNL.

[wiggy]

Understood....

I'm not denying there might be "niche routes" where AAR might make a difference - e.g. routes where performance limits are always capping payloads with subsequent loss of significant revenue and/or the postulated ultra ultra longhaul routes (e.g. Europe - Oz). Problem is establishing how big that niche is and given the continuing advances in aircraft performance how long many of those niches will last.

IMHO I suspect the niche, if there really is one, is very very small and is only going to get smaller. Certainly anyone currently justifying such schemes or writing academic papers or business plans based on 757 or similar era aircraft need to go and re-run the figures using 787/A350 performance figures. I suspect the operators would rather re-equip with a modern type rather than spend money running a parallel AAR type/fleet or using a AAR provider..and the regulator is going to run a mile when it comes to passenger ops.

[Roger D'Erassoff]

Wiggy

..and the regulator is going to run a mile when it comes to passenger ops.


Why do you say that Wiggy? Regulatory approval of the Voyager AAR programme was seamless and timely...:hmm:

[ian16th]

BEagle,

When we did EX PUP in Apr 1987, supporting the London-Australia record attempt...............
.......But they did get the record! What record was this?

The reason I ask is that I was of the opinion that the already mentioned Qantas B747-400 that did the no pax flight from Heathrow to Sydney broke the speed record that was set by the Vulcan with a 617 Sqdn crew in 1961.

Its not often that I'm right, but I could be wrong again :ugh:

[BEagle]

ian16th, the QANTAS London-Sydney flight on 16-17 Aug 1989 took just over 20 hours. Whereas the 101 Sqn London-Perth flight on 8 Apr 1987 took 16 hours, comfortably beating the previous 18 hr record (again achieved by 101 Sqn, not the 617th bombardment mob).

See http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Fastest%20non-stop%20England-Australia%201987.htm

The 101 Sqn record stands to this day.....:ok:

[ian16th]

Beags,

Thanks for that.

The article refers to a Vulcan flight that I was unaware of, in 1964.

I was involved with the 1961 effort. I was on 214, we had Valiant's in Akrotiri, Mauripur and Singapore. Me, I was in Mauripur as usual :uhoh: I did 5 visits to the place.

In my earlier post, I deliberately said a 617 CREW, as the Vulcans were on centralised sevicing at the time and the 'sqdns' didn't have any a/c. They were dolled out by the servicing organisation. By being 'different' we on 214 managed to avoid that fate.

I see that 101 carried Michael Cobham as a pax, his dad presented 214 with a trophy for our 1961 efforts!:ok:

[Bigpants]

The 1996 paper was published by The Royal Aeronautical and Engineering Soc.

Are you saying they publish rubbish?

[Bigpants]

OK just for the record I flew for BA for 9 years on the Bus and you really are a patronising idiot mate.

Range wrote to EASA and received a positive response because we could statistically prove AAR is actually safer than an airliner flown non precision approach.

Neither Range or myself are selling anything although I do have one patent and four others under application which might come to something.

Now wiggy what's your story, impress me with your efforts or belt up.

[BEagle]

Range wrote to EASA and received a positive response because we could statistically prove AAR is actually safer than an airliner flown non precision approach.

What an absurd comparison....:rolleyes:

[Bigpants]

I am trying to put forward some points without being rude so will try again.

Re regulation and civil air to air Range looked at Omega in the US as a template for a civil organisation permitted by the FAA to operate aircraft as tankers.

We wrote to EASA not long after it had been created and used comparative data from military AAR missions against some well known high risk civil procedures like non precision to promote the safety case for AAR.

The drivers for civil AAR when Range was set up were Economic, Political and Environmental (PESTLE ANALYSIS). Specifically, I felt that the threat of an EU Emissions Trading Scheme and a tax on aviation fuel might provoke a trade dispute in which players like Russia and China could deny EU airlines access to their airspace.

Had the scheme progressed fuel in Europe would have been taxed so the idea that departing with min fuel and topping up over the Gulf or even Turkey might have been commercially viable.

Since the scheme did not progress because of external political pressure I have not attempted to promote the idea any further in recent years. However, times change and civil air to air may be looked at again in the future.

[Bigpants]

note "the enormous financial losses" Airspace denial by Russia an important lever for them and one they may use again.

DDP
A Lufthansa Cargo plane at Frankfurt Airport.
Lufthansa Cargo was shocked by the announcement: Since Sunday midnight, Lufthansa's cargo planes have been banned from entering Russian airspace. "We heard about the ban at the very last minute," said a Lufthansa Cargo spokesman. "This means enormous financial losses for us. Flights to Japan, China, South Korea and Singapore have to be re-directed. Normally they would go via Astana in Kazakhstan and Tashkent in Uzbekistan."
ANZEIGE

Lufthansa Cargo is hoping for a solution at the governmental level. "This is a political affair. We can't do anything other than wait for a political solution," a spokesman said, adding that if Moscow doesn't reverse its decision soon, there will have to be a reduction of cargo flights to Asia. He refused to comment on reports that the ban may have been prompted by the company's delayed payments for its flyover rights.
Reprints

Find out how you can reprint this SPIEGEL ONLINE article.

Berlin is annoyed by the Russian ban. A spokesman from the Transport Ministry said that the misunderstanding is expected to be cleared up quickly. "Having conferred with the Chancellery, and the foreign and economics ministries, we are conducting talks with the Russian side," he said. No mention was made of the possible cause of the ban. "Negotiations are ongoing, so we don't want to discuss that at the moment." Spokespersons for the Chancellery and other ministries likewise refused to comment.
Transport Committee Annoyed

Several members of the parliamentary committee on transport expressed their frustration over the ban. "The way Russia fleeces airlines is akin to modern highway robbery," one parliamentarian said. Another mentioned that the European Union and Russia are currently negotiating an air traffic treaty. "Moscow's decision to withdraw flyover rights at precisely this moment amounts to a unilateral termination of these negotiations," he said. He claimed to know nothing about Russia's motives. Committee chairman Klaus Lippold of the conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) likewise refused to comment.

Almost all countries levy fees for the right to fly over their territories. "These fees vary from country to country," says air traffic legal expert Ronald Schmid. "That's why, for instance, routes from Frankfurt sometimes take a zigzag course to Buenos Aires, Argentina, in order to avoid territories with high fees."

According to one EU report, European airlines pay roughly €300 million ($433 million) annually for the right to fly through Russian airspace. A debate between the EU and Russia over these fees has been dragging on for almost 20 years. In a compromise reached by both sides in 2006, but which Moscow has yet to ratify, Russia agreed to abolish the fee by the end of 2013. Legal experts say that fees levied for flyover rights can only be applied to flight safety and must not exceed these expenses.

"For decades, EU airlines have been required to pay fees to the Russian company Aeroflot for the right to use Russian airspace between the EU and Japan, China and South Korea. These are in addition to the standard flight navigation fees," states a European Union paper. Airlines from the EU are thus obliged to enter into a commercial contract with Aeroflot. According to the authorities in Brussels, this practice contravenes international law and, in particular, the Chicago Convention of 1944, which guarantees air carriers flyover rights at no or limited expense.

The European Commission made the abolition of the fees a pre-condition to Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). And, in May 2004, Moscow committed to eliminating the fee. Starting in 2010, the rate is to be steadily reduced and airlines will no longer be required to enter into contractual agreements with Aeroflot.

Moscow Blames an Expired Contract

Members of the parliamentary transport committee consider Russia's cooperative attitude to be a thing of the past. "Russia is an unreliable partner," said one politician, referring to the fact that a few days ago, Moscow denied a Hong Kong passenger jet bound for London the right to fly over its territory, meaning that the passengers had to wait for hours at the airport in Hong Kong.
A spokesman for the Russian Transport Ministry refused to accept any responsibility, saying that air traffic between Germany and Russia was in no way affected and that Lufthansa Cargo had simply neglected to extend a contract that expired on Oct. 27. "That is why Lufthansa Cargo flights are banned from Russian airspace. There's no reason other than the expiration of the contract," he said, adding that it was up to the Germans to begin negotiating and to renew their contract.

On Monday, Germany responded to the Russian ban by prohibiting Aeroflot flights from using German airspace. According to a spokeswoman for Frankurt Airport, the German ban was lifted on Tuesday. But in the meantime, Aeroflot had to divert some flights -- to Luxemburg.

With additional reporting by Olga Zasuhina

[D-IFF_ident]

I'm in. Except for providing the capital - which is probably what anybody else in the game would say too.

[Brian Abraham]

An insight into the early experiences and experiments, written by David Beaty.

The first Atlantic flight refuelling trials had taken place on the Empire boats in 1939. In the spring of 1948, I had taken part in a further series, this time designed to extend the range of aircraft like the Tudor, and possibly the Comet and Britannia, in the hope of doing the water jump non—stop.

In Liberator Yoke Dog we would leave Montreal to rendezvous with a silver Lancastrian of Flight Refuelling Ltd a hundred miles or so off Gander or Shannon. Contact was made by radio homing, and then we talked to each other over the R/T. The rear of the Liberator had been modified and a line was extended with a weight on the end. The Lancastrian would fly across and above us, pick the line up on a grapnel and attach it to a hose.

Then the Lancastrian pilot would formate on us, twenty feet or so above our heads, while in the Liberator tail the lead was winched in, this time with the hose attached. The end of the hose would be connected to pipes leading to our petrol tanks, and we would tell the Lancastrian to start refuelling.

Joined together by the hose,.the Lancastrian above the Liberator, the two aircraft would continue in formation for ten minutes. By this time, six hundred gallons would have been transferred by gravity feed into the Liberator’s tanks. The signal to break away would then be given. A slight jerk could be felt as the hose was pulled out of the socket in the Liberator and wound back into the tanker aircraft. Then the Lancastrian pilot would wave to us, waggle his wings, and go back to his base, while we continued our way across the Atlantic.

Altogether I did eight flight refuelled trans Atlantic crossings, and l found them easy and efficient. We never had any trouble, though the smell of petrol at the back was strong for a while. The Liberator was faster than the Lancastrian, and I had to throttle back, while during refuelling the aircraft became a trifle tail heavy. The Flight Refuelling pilots were extraordinarily skilful at picking up the drogue and in formating, and I never had either a premature breakaway or a failure. In fact, as an interim measure before the arrival of aircraft with sufficient range, I was convinced that flight refuelling could prove successful.

Others thought differently. There were incidents when no contact was made between the Liberator and the tanker. On one occasion, the Lancastrian pilot complained that the Liberator appeared to have put on maximum power and taken avoiding action. I was going to do the first night refuelling over the Atlantic, but the crew put in a demand to the Corporation for danger money, so it was altered to another day refuelling.

The final report on the trials was lukewarm. Out of 43 scheduled refuellings, there had been three failures to refuel. Thirty irregularities had been reported, mainly failures to refuel at the optimum position. BOAC considered that there were many technical and operational factors still to be overcome. Flight refuelling must stand on economics. To be of value, it must lead to significantly higher load factors, a more attractive service and cheaper overall costs. The cost of maintaining tankers at Gander and Shannon was considered prohibitive.

However, the Ministry of Civil Aviation had other things to worry about, particularly the fact that the Comet and the Britannia had been primarily built for the Empire routes while it was at last clear to the government, particularly as the Empire was rapidly disappearing, that the North Atlantic was by far the most important. So the Ministry had to find a means of turning both aircraft into Atlantic fliers and flight refuelling was at that time the only answer. The Minister was also fearful of the effect of a possible shut—down of Flight Refuelling Ltd, in which event there was 'certain to be controversy'. A subsidy of {55,000 was offered to BOAC for work performed in connection with new flight refuelling trials on the North Atlantic.

Considerable progress had been made in connection with new probe and drogue equipment. Here the receiver aircraft nosed its way in to a socket at the end of a hose streamed by the tanker. Flight Refuelling Ltd wished to demonstrate this to BOAC. But the airline, as they had always been, were much keener to get an aircraft which could operate non—stop on its own devices. Sir Miles Thomas expressed his view that passengers would not by choice fly in an aircraft, however fast, that was ’going to be subject to new and strange manoeuvres in the air'.

The makers of the Comet, De Havilland, supported Flight Refuelling and in 1950 produced a paper showing that a scheduled non stop Comet flight could easily be maintained. Against average winds, estimated time westwards was 9.5 hours against the fastest current schedule of 18.2. Eastbound time was 7.5 against 12.6 hours. Payload would be 11,609 lb, with 1860 gallons being transferred over Shannon and 1426 over Gander.

‘Flight refuelling,' wrote De Havilland, 'will always pay a dividend because it permits the use of, or the design of, what may be called normal aeroplanes for Atlantic service rather than great fuel carriers. This consideration overrides any question of the economics of more frequent landings versus flight refuelling} Calling for active encouragement from all parties, the conclusion was ‘the prize—an unassailable competitive position on the world’s most important long—range air route—is worth the effort involved.’

In May 1951 a fiying trial using the new equipment was laid on. The Comet pilot had difficulty in flying the probe into the cone streamed on the end of the pipe from the tanker. The operation took forty-seven minutes, and the connection quickly broke. The BOAC pilots who were watching were not impressed. Further refinements were necessary.

In any case, by this time another star had suddenly swum into BOAC’s ken.
In 1951 the Ministry of Supply had asked Vickers to consider a design for an RAF transport aircraft, based on the Valiant bomber. BOAC were also interested in such a jet for the service across the Atlantic, and had joined in the discussions. As a result, in October 1952 Vickers were authorised to build a prototype called the V-1ooo, a much larger Comet type civil aircraft with an Atlantic range.

So that was apparently the end of flight refuelling on the water jump. In the event, flight refuelling has been a great military success, taken up by the Americans a long time before the British RAF, and big jet bombers are kept constantly on strategic patrol by this means.

Would it have worked on civil aircraft, enabling Britain to be years ahead with a fast non—stop service over the water jump? Pan American had always considered that passengers would not tolerate it. But in the end would they have got used to the idea, preferring it to the inevitable stops at that time at Gander or Keflavik? While the actual technicalities for the fuel transfer operation could have been achieved in time, at the back of many people’s minds was the danger of possible collision. Given a trouble-free service, it might have been a great success as an interim measure at that time»—but the cookie did not crumble that far, so nobody knows. Now again flight refuelling is being considered—this time for the supersonic Concorde.

[Rick777]

I have a bit of experience with air refueling. I flew KC135s from 1974 to 1988. When I started we had to wear parachutes and helmets for refueling. When I finished we could carry passengers. Air refueling is very safe, and there were very few accidents. During my time there were no aircraft losses due to refueling accidents and the only serious incidents involved training. I did get rear ended by a B52 once, but very little damage was done. Flying the tanker is very easy but the receiver is a different story. It is a perishable skill like landings. You either need to do it fairly often of have done a hell of a lot of them. I agree with the majority that AAR would never be economically feasible. Either the operation of a second aircraft or the training requirements for the crews would be prohibitive.

[Tankertrashnav]

I did get rear ended by a B52 once, but very little damage was done.

Rick777 The results were not always so happy, eg the Buccaneer/Victor accident in 1975 which resulted in the loss of the tanker and four out of five of its crew.

Maybe you can answer my question posed in post #27 - checking my logbook I see the conversation took place in 1974, so were KC135s routinely refuelling passenger aircraft by then? From what you say probably not, so this may have been something of a one-off