New answers tagged

1

The FAA does not appear to have issued a regulatory definition for wet or slippery, nor included such definitions in any current advisory circulars. However, in addition to the information provided by @Bianfable, certain guidance has been provided which may be informative. The original issuance of AC 91-79 (now superseded), Runway Overrun Prevention, ...


3

I also could not find a definition for wet or slippery by the FAA, only for a contaminated runway: CONTAMINATED RUNWAY− A runway is considered contaminated whenever standing water, ice, snow, slush, frost in any form, heavy rubber, or other substances are present. A runway is contaminated with respect to rubber deposits or other friction-degrading ...


2

Yes, of course this is possible. The main factor taken into account is pilot training. Mid-air refuelling puts the receiving aircraft into an unstable position which needs to be held manually for the duration of the operation. Without proper training, the refuelling operation will carry a high risk of being unsuccessful. Mechanically the modification is ...


1

I don't think that the physical / mechanical modifications to the aircraft would be that big. You essentially just need a receptacle at the front and a fuel line from the receptacle to the tank(s). Obviously, on transport category aircraft, everything has to be super-safe, so everything would have to be multiply redundant. E.g. two receptacles, each with ...


1

It is possible, although expensive. Several aerial tankers currently in service are based on airliners, for example the Airbus A330 MRTT: As Wikipedia states: In November 2015, it was announced that an RAF A330 MRTT would be refitted to carry government ministers and members of the Royal Family on official visits. The refit would cost £10m but would save ...


Top 50 recent answers are included