Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:30:35.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting the certification basis for airliner air-to-air refuelling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

R. J. Spencer
R. J. Spencer*
Affiliation:
Nagia Consultancy, Bristol, Uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The premise is that in the future civil Air-to-Air Refuelling (AAR) will become an economic necessity if popular mass air travel is to continue. What is attempted is to provide a contemporary view of how such future operations could be safely undertaken. The intention is to predict the certification basis for demonstrating safe AAR operation of Cruiser-Feeder concepts. The necessary systems and aircraft functions are treated very much as they are today when civil certifying a large aeroplane type. The compliance demonstration required for environmental conditions, flight envelope, systems providing the necessary functionality, structural integrity, weight and balance are discussed.

Applicable existing civil certification requirements are identified and where necessary expanded in scope to accommodate AAR operation. Where contemporary material does not supply appropriate guidance then corresponding safety criteria are proposed to address the deficiency. Lessons learnt from military AAR include the drive for interoperability. This has resulted in extensive efforts to standardise equipment and systems, which are equally applicable to civil AAR. Extremely useful advisory material exists, ranging from flight testing techniques to related safety.

The importance of ensuring the consistency of failure condition categorisation at system and aircraft level is highlighted. The treatment of failures when two aircraft are in close proximity is something not considered by civil functional hazard analysis. The concept of AAR as an additional flight phase is introduced and affected system safety analyses identified. Examples of failure conditions that are not catastrophic at system level, but potentially could be at aircraft level during AAR are provided. Rendezvous scenarios are described to illustrate their influence on the certification basis. Combining such considerations with the factors that influence aircraft design leads to ramifications for handling qualities, performance and fuel system design. A viable and certifiable AAR configuration is consequently proposed. Consideration is given to treating operational certification in a progressive manner similar to existing LROPS (Long Range Operations).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 119 , Issue 1220 , October 2015 , pp. 1175 - 1192
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Nagia, R.Operations and aircraft design towards greener civil aviation using air-to-air refuelling, Aeronaut J, November 2006, 110, (1113), pp 705–721.Google Scholar
2. European Aviation Safety Agency Certifcation Specifications part 25 Large Aeroplanes, Amendment 15, 21 July 2014, Annex to ED Decision 2014/026/R.Google Scholar
3. Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation.Google Scholar
4. EUROCAE document ED-84 Aircraft lightning Environment and Related Test Waveforms.Google Scholar
5. European Aviation Safety Agency Certifcation Specifications part 25 Large Aeroplanes, Acceptable Means of Compliance AMC 25.1419 Ice Protection.Google Scholar
6. UK Ministry of Defence, DEF STAN 00-970, Chapter 916 Air-to-Air Refuelling, amendment 7, May 1988.Google Scholar
7. The Testing of Fixed Wing Tanker and Receiver Aircraft to Establish their Air-to-Air Refuelling Capabilities, AGARD (Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development) Volume 11 ISBN 92-835-06987.Google Scholar
8. NATO Allied Technical Publication ATP-56(B) (AJP 3.3.4.2), Air-to-Air Refuelling, 22 January 2010.Google Scholar
9. Aerial Refuelling Equipment Dimensional and Functional Characteristics, STANAG 3447 edition 3, 25 September 1990.Google Scholar
10. MIL-PRF-81975C Performance Specification Couplings, Regulated, Aerial Pressure Refuelling Type MA-2, Type MA-3 and Type MA-4, 22 January 2008, 3.8.11 Regulation capability (MA-3 and MA-4) couplings.Google Scholar
11. INT/POL/25/12 EASA policy statement on the process for developing instructions for maintenance and inspection of fuel tank system ignition source prevention, 5th August 2005.Google Scholar
12. AGARD Conference Proceedings No.467 Aircraft Fire Safety ISBN-92-835-0529-8/AD-A217575 CLODFELTER, R. Hot surface ignition studies of aviation fluids.Google Scholar
13.www.concordesst.com/returntoflight/rts/chapter5.htmlGoogle Scholar
14. STANAG 7215 Edition 2, Signal Lights in Drogue Air-to-Air Refuelling Systems, 31 March 2010.Google Scholar
15. SAE Aerospace Recommended Practice ARP4754, Revision A, Guidelines for Development of Civil Aircraft and Systems, December 2010.Google Scholar
16.http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Northrop_Grumman_US_Navy_Test_Autonomous_Aerial_Refueling_for_Unmanned_Combat_Air_System_Demonstration_999.htmlGoogle Scholar
17.Thomas, M. Analysis of the causes of inflight refueling mishaps with the KC-135, Air Force Institute of Technology, AFIT/GSM/LSM/89S-41, September 1989.Google Scholar