I know and understand that's the primary point, but if there's no rep loss to go with it there's little incentive for many people to stop posting crap. If there's already a downvote or two I just leave it, just seems a waste after that.
@Notts90 That's not quite true. If an author's posts are consistently negative-scored, they soon get blocked from posting further, and there are steps to make it hard for them to evade the block by creating fresh accounts.
There's a lot of things to do with blocking low-quality posts not mentioned in the help centre, because they're trying to focus more on helping people write good posts.
@Notts90 I don't but I work in IT. Now back up your documents and NEVER YOU FUCKING MIND ABOUT THE FACT THAT NOBODY IN OPS HAS THE BACKUP AGENT INSTALLED ON THEIR WORKSTATIONS.
pondering if there are any refueling tankers that have full (i.e. non-experimental) type certificates
that would allow them to conduct operations as a tanker
(the A330 MRTT is a STC package atop the base A330 airframe, but I'm not sure how that changes the allowable operations when operating under its civil type certificate)
the closest analog that's considered allowed under part 91 is formation flying, and that just requires the PICs to all be on the same page and no passengers-for-compensation carried
I suspect that two civilians doing the tanker/tankee thing would get busted under "risk of collision" (91.111 IIRC) but I'm not sure how that works (is the controlled and deliberate mating of parts of two different aircraft still a "collision" in the FAA's eyes?)
I don't know how it works if s military design becomes civilian. It happens with a lot of planes, though, where they manufacture both civil and military variants. I've never heard of a tanker crossing over, though
The Hangar
The Hangar